Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this motion of the member for Farrer, who will be addressing the chamber in the near future. I speak in favour of this motion as child care provides an important service to our society. It allows children to interact with their peers and become more independent from a young age. It gives parents flexible options with regard to working and family arrangements. It is vital that child care is easily accessible and affordable.

However, child care is becoming more and more expensive for families with a myriad of changes implemented by state Labor governments putting increased pressure on both this sector and on the families it supports. In my home state of Queensland proposed changes to DECKAS, the Department of Education Community Kindergarten Assistance Scheme, found that the arrangements have caused the largest provider in the state, C&K, to advise their affiliates that they will need to increase their prices, with most now looking at charging $25 to $28 a day. This is a sharp increase in the current daily out-of-pocket expense and may well price many families out of early education altogether.

These increases are not restricted to Queensland alone, with changes to the staff-to-children ratio regulations, introduced by the New South Wales Labor government, in anticipation of proposed national reforms. This has resulted in some Sydneysiders paying up to $100 per day for child care. There have also been reports of families on waiting lists at centres for up to two years. One report states that 40 per cent of families believe that child care is so expensive that it is not worth them working, but only 12 per cent have said that they do not need it.

The industry is already struggling and it is clear that the government has not considered the full implications of this cut to occasional child care. The Gaythorne Community Kindergarten and Limited Hours Care has written to both Minister Kate Ellis and me regarding the effects that this cut will have on their centre. The centre is community based and is a not-for-profit organisation which over the years has adapted to the needs of families in the Gaythorne area and the surrounding suburbs by taking the initiative and providing an invaluable service. It was clear from the pages upon pages of support letters and endorsements that accompanied their submission to me that the Gaythorne Community Kindergarten and Limited Hours Care is not only needed but also highly valued by the local community. This was also clear earlier this year when I visited the centre with the Hon. Sussan Ley, our shadow minister and member for Farrer, who is getting out and around Australia and talking to the real people who will be affected by this government's proposal.

The implications of the budget cut to occasional-care child care would see the service lost to the families of Gaythorne. It would mean that children would lose the socialisation that is vital to their development and happiness. It would also see the seven staff the centre employs, and their families, face uncertainty about their future. It would also affect the children of families who are already on the long waiting list to attend the centre. In short, the impact of this budget cut, which has only come about due to this government's reckless financial mismanagement, means that Australian families and Australian children are being put at a disadvantage at a critical point in their lives. The minister's own website states:

The government has an ambitious agenda to improve the quality, affordability and accessibility of child care because the research is clear that a child's experience in the early years sets the course for the rest of their life.

Given that these are the words on the minister's own website, I am confused as to how the minister believes that her actions in cutting funding for occasional-care child care match up with this stated aim. When stakeholders around the country are saying that this funding cut is detrimental to the industry and families, how is access and affordability being achieved?

This government has clearly failed the childcare industry. After the big promises of the 2007 federal election, we have heard little in terms of child care other than backflips, such as the scrapping of building 222 new childcare centres, and indeed threats, such as the freezing and eventual cut of the childcare rebate. The uproar with which this latter proposal was met saw the government backflip on this as well. We have seen reform in the industry in terms of staff ratios cause a huge amount of uncertainty for this sector, with most feedback stating that these changes will dramatically increase costs, again reducing accessibility to child care.

Before us today we have a motion which acknowledges the ill-thought-out process of cutting the occasional-care childcare funding. When it comes to child care, it seems that this government is struggling to get anything right. I urge every responsible member of parliament to support their communities and to support this motion.

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

I rise today to speak on the motion by the member for Farrer, not only as a member of parliament but also as a father of two children who are under four years of age. Child care and early education is something I am deeply concerned with, particularly given my two sons, Isaac and Noah, are accessing these forms of care.

In my electorate there are countless families in the same situation who are deeply conscious of all things to do with early childhood education and child care. This government has been putting in place some very substantial reforms to ensure that every child in Australia is provided with opportunities to develop the sorts of skills that will best suit their needs prior to going to primary school and to provide the opportunity for both parents to participate in the workplace. The reforms that the Gillard Labor government has been putting in place in this area will lead to confident, smart kids who will substantially contribute to the direction of this nation.

Of course, we do need to reflect on the sad history of the Liberal Party in this particular area, where for many years they believed that the role of Mum was to remain in the kitchen or looking after the kids. Labor has had a very proud history of putting in place reform that enables both men and women to participate in the economy and to participate in the workplace. We have put in place record investment—some $20 billion—in early childhood education and care, and we will be doing that over the next four years.

I think it is worth making the note that the work we will put in over the next four years more than doubles the effort of the Howard government in their last four years of office. We are putting a lot of additional money and attention into this area to ensure that all children have an opportunity. I think this particular motion is somewhat wayward in that it fails to recognise the very substantial contribution that the Commonwealth has been making and will continue to make under this government in this particular area. The previous funding arrangements that were put in place—some $273.7 million investment to support the introduction of the new National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care—I think were very substantial contributions that this parliament and this government have made.

I particularly want to take the opportunity to point out the consequences of the election of the Baillieu government at the last state election. That, of course, was the axing of the Take a Break childcare program in Victoria.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they put the money on the table.

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

I thank the member for McMillan, but the reality is that we had been working with state and territory governments to put in place additional funding. This was an area that was and should be the responsibility of the Victorian government, and they have announced that they will be axing this program from 1 January next year. That will hurt an enormous number of facilities and entities within my electorate providing this program, particularly the Anglesea and District Community House, the Apollo Bay Children's Centre, the Deans Marsh Community Cottage, the Forrest Preschool, the Haddon and District Community House, the Inverlea Occasional Care, the Lorne Figtree Community House, the Meredith Community Centre, the Rokewood Occasional Care Facility, the Torquay Children's Services Hub and the Winchelsea Community House in Winchelsea.

These facilities and the services that have historically been delivered from these areas have made a very substantial contribution to those communities, and it is an absolute shame that the Baillieu government has axed this important funding. On the one hand, federal Labor—the Gillard government—is putting record investment into this space. On the other hand, the Baillieu government is taking money out of these services. Over the next four years the Commonwealth government will be providing some $9.2 billion and around $7.2 billion in the childcare rebate area. The Commonwealth government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, have directed a lot more funding into these areas and we have a very proud history of doing this. We want to give every young person under the age of four every opportunity in life and we are putting real money into this space to ensure that that can happen, but we are also doing it in a way that makes sense and that is based on the successful negotiations that we undertook, by and large, at the COAG early childhood roundtable.

This government is also putting in $399 million through child care benefit; $291 million though the childcare rebate, which pays for 50 per cent of out-of-pocket costs for families; $21.3 million for childcare services and support; $16.95 million for children's and family centres; and $17.4 million in new early learning and care centres. We will continue to invest in this important policy area. We have put in a lot more money in the first four years of the Gillard government than the Howard government did in their last four years. We have a proud history in this space and we will continue to contribute in every way that we can to ensure that working families have every opportunity to educate and care for their children.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak to the motion in my name. By way of background, in the 2010-11 budget, the Labor government removed federal funding for occasional care, and this shifted the entire cost of funding onto the states. Occasional care provides a flexible model of child care, providing places for children who may only need care on an ad hoc basis. In rural communities in particular, this care has proved to be invaluable to, for example, farming families during the harvest or the shearing season. What we have here is a government intent on shirking its responsibility. By contrast, the coalition have committed to restoring the $12.6 million that was ripped from the occasional care funding budget by the federal Labor government in the 2010 budget, because we accept that this, as with all child care, is a federal responsibility.

In Melbourne on 25 October, a week ago tomorrow, the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare said:

The Australian government has never had a direct funding relationship with these services …

In the minister's department, I am sure some staff member is patting themselves on the back and calling that a rather clever piece of wording. But, actually, one might call it mischievous. Let us speak the truth: this is an appalling and self-serving misrepresentation of how funding for child care has historically worked in this country. The website of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, DEEWR, directly states:

The Australian Government provides financial support to approved Occasional Care services.

It just so happens that occasional child care in Victoria is called Take a Break, and it might be called something else in New South Wales, Queensland or WA, but it still amounts to the same thing: occasional care. This joint federal-state cooperative for occasional child care in Victoria has been run successfully, at a moderate cost to government, since 1988-89.

The central announcement in Minister Ellis's comments last week, another self-serving piece of tripe, was the supposed creation of more than 1½ thousand new occasional and in-home care places for Australian families. I would make two points. The minister says that the government does not fund these programs—it does not have 'a direct funding relationship'—then, in the same breath, she announces new funding for them. Notwithstanding that peculiar and embarrassing slip-up, of those, only 250 occasional care places and 140 in-home care places may go to Victoria, and I am advised that there is next to no chance of their going to regional Victoria, where Labor's abandonment of occasional care will be felt the most. There was another bewildering truism from the minister on 22 July this year, when she said:

Child care funding is a shared responsibility between the Australian, state and territory governments. Nothing has changed on that front.

I am sorry, Minister; it has. Two years ago, federal Labor decided it no longer wanted to share the responsibility of occasional care. The minister has continually noted since then that, while Victoria can no longer do so from next month, other states intend to cover the federal shortfall. One of these reasons is quite simple: it is that in Victoria there is the greatest percentage of children who access occasional care—at the last count, in 220 neighbourhood houses and community centres across the state. They are so concerned that even the minister's own side of politics cannot quite believe what they have done. When questioned in the Victorian parliament in June, Labor's shadow minister assisting the leader on children and young adults admitted that she believed the federal government should fund the program, when she said that she had actually lobbied her federal counterparts to reinstate their funding for Take a Break.

This week we have lodged a petition containing some 3,000 signatures calling for the government to immediately reinstate this $12 million in occasional care funding removed from the previous two federal budgets. This is a call to reinstate funding not just for Victoria, but for every state and territory in Australia. This is because the coalition knows, the Greens know—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 20 : 01 to 20 : 14

This week we have lodged a petition containing some 3,000 signatures calling for the government to immediately reinstate the $12 million in occasional care funding that was removed from the previous two federal budgets. This is not just a call to reinstate funding for Victoria but for every state and territory in Australia. This is because the coalition knows, the Greens know, parents know, DEEWR knows and, indeed, it seems that everyone knows apart from the childcare minister and the Labor government that the Australian government provides financial support to approved occasional care services.

These are parents who signed the petition: Sally is parent to four boys and is from Greensborough in Melbourne; Jarrod is a single dad, working odd jobs to make ends meet; and Jessica Burrows is a mum from Warrnambool. The list goes on and the names go on. There is the Rosanna Fire Station Community House, the Sale Neighbourhood House, Grovedale Community Centre in the city of Geelong and the Orwil Street Community House at Frankston—only this morning I heard news that this centre will now close next month.

There are others that have or who will be forced to shut their doors: two centres at Chelsea Heights in Melbourne, and another at Mallacoota in East Gippsland. I received a note from an early childhood specialist, Jane Duffy, who was so concerned about the likely closure of the nearby Uniting Church occasional care that she felt compelled to write:

The threat of closure could likely lead to increased circumstances of family breakdown as parents find themselves unable to access an affordable short-term, respite, support service that gives them a break from the demands of early years parenting.

There was another from a group of parents at Baranduda, neighbouring my own elector.ate. Leah Bowles writes:

We are deeply concerned at the threat of losing what has become a valuable and vital community program. It is the ONLY childcare offered in our community. Losing this service will be devastating to our community, our families and most importantly our children.

Last week the childcare minister—and I quoted from her remarks earlier where she did not seem to be quite sure whether this was or was not a responsibility of the federal government—did allocate a few occasional childcare places to a few areas of the country. They are way too little, too late and this is not working in the really brilliant way that occasional care does work. I will use the Victorian example, where you have a little bit of state money and a little bit of federal money—maybe only $7,000 per service. I have seen services in rural Victoria with $7,000 of federal and state money and a whole lot of community fundraising with lamingtons and cakes and drives for goodness knows what—parents working really hard but coming together as a committed family-parent community in the process. Maybe the council will chip in with the rent of a building for nothing and a few facilities and then you have a wonderful community asset. That is the strength and the secret of occasional child care.

What this minister has done is to pull one card out of the pack and the whole lot has come crashing down. The example of $7,000 is a good one because it is the same for many areas, and by taking just that little amount out the rest is just too much for all of the other funders to provide.

We in the coalition restate our commitment that as a government we will put back the occasional care funding that has been taken out by this minister. With a sleight of hand she tried last week to find additional places. They are funded through child care benefit, so they are not funded in the original way that Take A Break was funded for in Victoria. They are taken from a group of childcare places, which I think were sitting there as unused in-home care places because, coincidentally, we seem to be talking about exactly the same number. I was made aware of 1,500 in-home care places that were not being used and which were sitting on the books in the department. That is quite a different form of care; it is for disadvantaged children—children whose parents might be very ill or children who really require short-term, intensive live-in child care.

It looks to me as if the minister has raided that child care, has scratched up a few more places from somewhere else, allocated this paltry number—300, I think, in Victoria—and said that she has fixed the problem. She does need to make up her mind whether this is a federal responsibility and, if it is, to put back the fantastic system we had before which the coalition has committed to, which the state government in Victoria has committed to, which works really well and which provides a vital service for parents and families.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is one aspect of both the Rudd government and the Gillard government that I am particularly proud of it is the wonderful changes, reforms and contributions that the government that I have been part of has made to child care. They have revolutionised the way child care operates in this country. They have made it more affordable—they have put it within range of all families so that it is not just something for those who can afford it. It means that children from all backgrounds are now able to have the same opportunities. It is not a have and have-not approach to child care; it is a very inclusive approach. And I am very, very proud to be a member of the government that has brought this to fruition.

The Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare announced last week—and I heard the previous member denigrating the announcement that she made—that more than 1½ thousand new occasional and in-home care places would be provided in Australia for Australian families. The number of new allocations represents a rise in support for government funded occasional-care places of 35 per cent—that is quite significant—and a market increase of around 17 per cent across the home-care sector.

The government understands that centre based care may not be suitable for all Australian families. Not everybody wants their child to be cared for in a centre. We are about giving people choices; we are not about dictating the kind of care a person should have. By putting in place funding for services within the home, we are also giving people the choice that they need. Occasional-care services support Australian families by providing some flexibility. Parents have the opportunity to place their children in those centres or within in-home care.

The neighbourhood model occasional-care program was changed in the last budget but, at the same time, as I have just pointed out, we announced some additional places last week. But it is very important for this parliament to note: the Australian government has never had a direct funding relationship with services in receipt of funding under this program, as funding was provided directly to the states and territories. What the member is asking is something that is not the responsibility of the Australian government. Once that money was given directly to the state and territory governments to fund occasional care they then administered their own programs. I come from New South Wales, and for the last two years this program has been fully supported by the New South Wales state government. I think that the member has brought this motion to the House tonight to try and make political mileage out of an issue that really does affect some families. But there are still options out there: a number of long-day-care centres have taken up the occasional-care role.

The government is totally committed to ensuring that Australian children have the best start in life. It has underpinned, by a record investment of $20 billion, early child care education over the next four years. That represents more than a doubling of the investment made by the Howard government in their last four years of office. That speaks for itself. This government is committed to child care. This government is committed to ensuring that each and every child has the opportunity to have good quality care, and I think that the member should be honest with this parliament and portray the picture as it is. (Time expired)

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

I commend the motion put forward by the member for Farrer. It is an issue that I have spoken about several times on behalf of the people of Gippsland, who have raised very real concerns about the future of the Take a Break funding as it applies to neighbourhood houses in my own electorate. I would urge those opposite who say we are trying to score political points or grandstand on this issue to start listening to the people who are writing to us—and we are forwarding those representations on to the minister—to understand just how serious the situation is. If they are trying to understand why they are languishing with a primary vote in the opinion polls under 30 per cent, it could be because they have turned a deaf ear to the complaints of people in regional Australia. This very issue highlights the hypocrisy of this government. It claims to care about regional families and then cuts funding to a program that, in many cases, provides the only form of child care in small country towns in electorates such as mine of Gippsland.

This program that we are referring to in the motion used to be funded by the federal government in the order of 70 per cent with the state government of Victoria providing 30 per cent of the funding for the Take a Break program. It is a very aptly named program because it provides a little bit of respite, particularly for mums in regional communities. It is support for mums who may then have the opportunity to take on some part-time work or just simply do the grocery shopping or have a little bit of time to themselves while their children are in a good care environment.

The federal government's budget for this program was $12.6 million over four years. We are talking about a miserable $12.6 million over four years, and this program was doing enormous good throughout regional communities. It is a highly efficient program, and the member for Farrer referred to that. It really is a community asset right across Victoria. It really should not be this hard for us to provide occasional care in these communities.

I would like to refer to some comments made in relation to this issue by the Victorian Neighbourhood House Network and Angela Savage, the executive officer, who described the Take a Break program, or TAB, as follows:

TAB funding is critical to the continued provision of affordable occasional childcare for communities serviced by Neighbourhood Houses, particularly those in rural and regional areas. The cessation of TAB funding will have an impact on over 9,000 children and their families , many of whom already experience some form of disadvantage, causing a decrease in childcare services and/or an increase in childcare costs …

These impacts will be most acute where there are no other childcare services at all, and also in areas where there is no alternative occasional childcare service.

As I said, I have written to the minister in relation to this issue. I also tabled a petition with more than 1,000 signatures which were collected in Gippsland. It came from towns like Swifts Creek, a small town in my electorate, Paynesville, Heyfield, Gormandale and Mallacoota. These all have very well-run occasional care programs. The very real threat is that by the end of this year none of these programs will exist in my community.

I remind this government that it is not what you say but what you do that really matters. In this House in May this year the minister said:

The Australian government recognises that child care is an essential enabler of workforce participation, most particularly for Australian women.

At a time when employers are crying out for workers then it is essential that we are supporting parents who want to return to work to be able to participate confidently.

We had a program that worked and now this federal government and this minister are refusing to listen to the people of regional Victoria who just want the funding to be guaranteed for the future so that they have the security of being able to have a little bit of respite or to take on a bit of work to assist the family budget. This government really must follow up the type of rhetoric that the minister has espoused here in this chamber. She must follow up this hollow rhetoric with action. She should reinstate the funding and restore confidence in regional communities that someone in Canberra is actually listening to them.

The member for Farrer mentioned the number of letters she has received on this topic. I have one here from only a matter of days ago. It is an email that was sent to me on Friday by a lady named Traci from Heyfield. Traci describes herself as a 34-year-old mother with three children under five. I will just quote from her email. It says:

For the first time in a long time I have been able to have a couple of hours to myself once a week because of the take a break program. My youngest 18 months and my 3 year old have started going to the occasional program on Tuesdays. I cannot begin to explain what it feels like to have a couple of hours off to myself (with those couple of hours I do an exercise program run by the community resource centre then I go grocery shopping without screaming children, occasionally get my much needed hair done). This program is so important to our isolated community. My husband works away 2 weeks at a time so those couple of hours for me are so crucial for my independence and sanity. I believe a lot of other mums are in the same situation regarding children and the take a break program.

Traci goes on to say—and by the way this is the only service in the town of Heyfield:

… cutting this service will hurt us all, all us mums who are trying to find ourselves again, trying to get back on our feet. Whether it's an education course and exercise program for trying to get into shape or an hour to ourselves, mums with very young children need this program.

Please don't take the funding from this much needed service. It's an amazing centre with amazing staff that truly care …

Thank you for listening.

I simply ask the question: is anyone listening on the other side of the House?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Victorian childcare sector, including 128 Neighbourhood houses, has been appalled by the political stand-off over the investment of less than $2 million into occasional child care in Victoria. When the federal government did not renew its $12 million national contribution to occasional child care, some states picked up the shortfall. However, the six-month-old coalition government in Victorian pulled out of its $700,000 contribution, promising to reinstate this funding only if the federal government followed suit. This unnecessary brinkmanship has had a profound effect on vulnerable families, with the cessation of the Take A Break program, the closure of occasional childcare places at some centres and the imminent closure of more in 2012. Some of these are in the electorate of Melbourne, with others in remote rural communities.

The state government has argued that childcare funding is not their responsibility. There would be some merit in this position were it not the case that funding for community based programs at Neighbourhood houses is the domain of state government. Occasional child care is provided by 128 Neighbourhood houses in Victoria and these providers have a reasonable expectation that their state government will fund them to provide programs which support and develop their communities. At this point, I would like to congratulate the Association of Neighbourhood houses and Learning Centres, in particular Angela Savage, for their tireless work on this issue on behalf of houses in their communities.

Last week, Minister Ellis announced a small increase in federal funding for occasional child care, demonstrating that the Commonwealth government does indeed have a role in funding occasional child care. However, while the 250 extra occasional childcare places announced for Victoria are welcome, they barely register for the centres wondering how to fund the places they had funding for until this year—places that would have accommodated around 10,000 children. One centre in my electorate of Melbourne, operating at a public housing estate with despairingly high unemployment figures, would alone require 30 of the new 250 places to support its occasional childcare program. Unless this centre and many like it receive funding, they will have to cut their service.

I hope that the minister is listening to this because circumstances particular to the electorate of Melbourne are being overlooked in the decisions being made by the federal government at the moment. My electorate of Melbourne has more public housing than any other electorate in the country. We are home to many people who have come here under various refugee and migration streams. They are usually not skilled migrants. There are more single mothers in Melbourne than in many other electorates in the country. We have these public housing tower blocks which house thousands of people in the middle of affluent suburbs. When you look at the suburb-by-suburb analysis, yes, the area looks wealthy. But we have pockets of thousands and thousands of people who are in distress and doing it tough. They are using the occasional child care at these Neighbourhood houses to help get themselves out of poverty and to help begin integrating into the Australian employment market. They go to many of the Neighbourhood houses which I visit. They are studying for their certificate II or III in child care, they are perhaps doing a catering course and they are perhaps learning English. The Take A Break program and occasional care funding has been absolutely essential in saving these people from becoming more and more isolated.

The effects on these people, which are not showing up in the government analysis of vulnerable areas, are going to be huge. We know that there is extensive research to support the need for funded occasional child care. The Brotherhood of St Laurence has demonstrated it, the Australian Institute of Family Studies has demonstrated it and the original Henry review demonstrated it. We know that Australia has, relative to OECD standards, low rates of employment of lone mothers and high rates of joblessness for mothers with dependent children. We know that one of the greatest barriers to workforce training and participation for vulnerable women is the scarcity of high-quality accessible and affordable child care.

It is exactly these people who are, in my experience in the electorate of Melbourne—and I think you will find it in many other places as well—being hardest hit by this dispute over a very small amount of money which would make an enormous difference to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. These are some of the people whom—and I know the government agrees—we want to encourage into employment participation. A needs analysis of demand for occasional child care can be difficult, given the vulnerability and often invisibility of potential users. It is difficult to assess how many occasional childcare places require funding, but it is many more than 250. We are with the federal government that occasional child care must be of a high standard and that standards of occasional child care should be set as part of the national quality framework. But, in the meantime, all of the research and all of the experience of providers confirms that federal funding for occasional child care is required and that community based providers such as neighbourhood houses and rural centres should be supported by state governments to ensure families can access affordable and high-quality occasional child care. The federal government should step up to the plate as well.

Debate adjourned.