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

I am pleased to speak today on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which, from the beginning, has been something of a sham. Even in the government's own explanatory memorandum, they claim that this fund will provide $300 million over two years to all long day care services which are approved for child care benefit. Regrettably, this is not true, as the fund will only provide pay increases to between 27 and 40 per cent of the sector, leaving more than 60 per cent behind.

We have not even got an accurate number of workers in this sector, with estimates between 62,000 and 78,000. So the minister talking about 40 per cent of the sector is just not true. We do not know how much increased income those who are lucky enough to receive money under this fund would get, despite the union United Voice publishing a handy table for their members, citing figures they have pulled out from goodness knows where. The minister has put the responsibility for determining that actual amount in the hands of a seven-member advisory committee, which has recently been appointed.

So we are starting well behind the eight ball on this piece of legislation. About the only accurate figure the government has been able to provide is the amount of money they are appropriating for it—$300 million, in an environment where every single extra dollar borrowed is a burden on the next generation.

I am the first to admit that those who work in early child care and childhood learning are poorly paid. I have visited hundreds of centres and met thousands of staff and their young charges, and I know that they are doing it tough. They work long hours and they have such an important role to play in helping shape the futures of our next generation, and they do deserve to be fairly recompensed.

I say to the government, in a pre-emptive strike, that this is not about the opposition not believing that those on low pay should be better rewarded; those on low pay everywhere deserve to be better rewarded. Unfortunately, the system does not allow for them to be as lucky as this particular group of workers, where the government has done a deal—some have described it as a dirty, dodgy deal—with the union about increasing that union's membership. It is also a cruel hoax because it is giving false hope to a group of the most vulnerable workers in this country.

There are existing processes for making fair and lasting wage claims. In this instance, the correct process would be, and still could be, to lodge a claim with the Fair Work Commission, seeing responsibility for this decision rest with an independent umpire. The Fair Work Commission is the Prime Minister's own creation, a proud record—as the government talks it up—of having an independent quasi-judicial body tasked with implementing the modern award system and, in so doing, being equitable across every single wage category. But this completely usurps that process. It should be said, too, that it is not the role of government to write blank cheques. Given the diabolical mess that this government has put us in financially, we should be tightening our belts across the board instead of giving in to 'union mates'.

What we need to do is approach this issue in a manner that will see a fair and equitable outcome for all who work in the sector. Had United Voice lodged a claim with Fair Work Australia, as the commission was called two years ago, they would have had a decision by now and I am certain that all in the industry would be taking home more than they currently are. Instead, they did not do the hard yards; they did not do the hard work. They cosied up to their mates in this government and produced this half-baked deal which gives false hope to a group of the most vulnerable workers in this country.

In my travels to childcare centres around Australia I spend a lot of time chatting with the mainly young women on the floor. The absolute majority are doing this job because they adore the children. They love watching them learn and helping them grow. They view this as a vocation. It is not about the money. It is something many of them feel they were born to do, so we are lucky to have them. We know they work for low wages and we want to support them, but we do not want to cheat them, we do not want to hoax them and we do not want to give them the false hope that this piece of legislation and this scheme are doing.

The requirements of the national quality framework deserve a mention here. Whenever I speak to childcare educators and ask whether the job is what they expected it to be, nine times out of 10 I get the answer: 'Well, yes, except for the paperwork. I never thought I'd have to spend my days ticking checklists and writing minireports that parents don't seem to want to read when I know that what I want to do and what I am gifted to do is to sit on the floor educating and caring for the children.'

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate inquiries were bombarded with submissions on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill that we are debating now, yet there were many voices that were unable to be heard as the government allowed only one week in their haste to push this through the parliament. Many submissions arrived after the deadline, but there is a common theme with the majority of the submissions, and that is inequity. Instead of distributing this fund fairly across the sector, resulting in a pay rise of around $40 a person per week, the government has agreed to just provide increases to a small portion of the workforce. It absolutely appals me that a Labor government could be supporting a measure that will clearly disadvantage and disenfranchise more than 60 per cent of this workforce. Not only has this funding been confined to long day care workers but it will reach well under half of them—not occasional care workers, not family day care workers, not in-home care workers; just long day care workers.

What sort of message does this send to those who will miss out? In the words of the Childcare Association of Western Australia, it is likely to make them feel undervalued and could actually lead to a higher staff turnover. Even if it were 40 per cent of the workforce—and, honestly, estimates are saying it will be a lot less—this is one small subgroup of the entire workforce in child care. But it happens neatly to dovetail with a section that this government is clearly aiming this legislation at, and that is union members. In spite of the minister's small and humble insistences that, no, you do not have to be a union member in order to get this particular increase to your pay, the overwhelming view in the world out there is that you do, because union delegates are visiting childcare centres—of course, they have right of entry provisions beefed up under this government—and saying to the workforce there: 'Join the union and you'll get the pay rise—you will be one of the lucky ones.' It should be everyone's individual decision whether to join a union, and, as I have often said, I have belonged to three unions and have nothing against unions. I have a lot against this union's particular campaign in this area, because it is not true. The minister, instead of stating categorically and making it absolutely clear—this is not the minister at the table; this is the minister for early childhood—that you do not have to be a member of this union to get the pay rise, simply updated the frequently asked questions on the department's website. He was hiding behind the department, unable to clearly state to a vulnerable group of workers that they are being misled by this union and fleeced of their $500 membership fees—that is a lot of money for somebody on low wages. They have joined up to the union and they now have an expectation that they will get this pay rise, and the union's campaign—well known as 'Big Steps' across this country—has falsely given them that expectation.

If you look at the Big Steps Facebook page—and I encourage everyone interested in this area to do exactly that—you will see the comments made by the workforce, including such things as, 'I can now go on holiday,' 'I can now afford to buy a car,' 'I can now afford to get married,' and, 'I am going to get this pay rise.' The irresponsibility of the government in breaking the hearts of vulnerable workers by turning around and saying, 'Well, maybe not—and, by the way, it has nothing to do with the $500 membership fee that you just handed out to United Voice,' after allowing this campaign to run rampant across the childcare centres of this country, deserves extreme condemnation.

As the Australian Childcare Alliance has pointed out in its submission, there is a very real danger of other centres being forced to raise their costs to match the centres that would receive the funding in order to address a government-generated inequity. Regrettably for the families of Australia who have already seen an increase in the cost of child care—to the tune of about 26 per cent since Julie Gillard became Prime Minister—the cost may well increase quite a bit more as the result of this abysmal policy decision. Understandably, the sector is also aggrieved by the requirement to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement in order to be able to access the funds. Currently, only marginally more than 20 per cent of the sector uses EBAs, and for many smaller centres these are a costly investment, can take months to negotiate and cost thousands of dollars.

We have seen sizeable protests outside the childcare minister's Adelaide office. There would have been protests outside of Minister Garrett's office, but he is tucked away on the eighth floor of a very poorly signed building, so it is hard to actually find him. Both ministers with responsibilities in this area appear deaf to the pleas not only of childcare operators but also of the many workers in the industry who also do not think it is fair that only a proportion of their number get rewarded more highly for doing the same job.

Another area that I believe deserves attention today—I have highlighted it and I do want to highlight it some more—is the role played by the union United Voice. Their behaviour in this campaign has been nothing short of outrageous. We have seen a United Voice member post a photograph of a childcare peak organisation's president on their Facebook page, mocking them. We have had centres being phoned or visited by United Voice officials and being informed that, unless a minimum of 60 per cent of the workforce signs up, they will not be able to secure the pay rise. I guess that 60 per cent figure that they are quoting comes from the fact that, to have a EBA, you have to have 60 per cent of the workforce sign up, but it has nothing to do with this.

Young workers have been told that, if they do not join the union and give $500 of their annual wages to union dues, their colleagues will not get the pay rise—and they must not let down their colleagues; they would be letting their friends down. I know of a centre where the United Voice representative told them that, without union involvement, they were not even allowed to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement. Some centres have been told that they need to enter into memorandums of understanding with the union, committing to:

Despite a letter being sent from the department's David De Silva to Louise Tarrant in early April that noted their transgressions and referred them to a document that clearly states that union membership is not a prerequisite for being eligible for this fund, they have persisted. That is where I am critical of the ministers in this area—for essentially hiding behind departmental letters and frequently asked questions on websites. The letter, by the way, is very lightly worded and I suspect that there was quite a bit of red ink applied to the draft from the minister's office. But the fact is that the union knew—and knows—that the information it is peddling is untrue. What is even more disgusting is that this is the union that is supposed to represent the interests of low-paid workers but it is more than happy to lie to them in order to secure more memberships.

We have a government that has failed to heed the cries of industry and that is intent on racing through this legislation without even enabling the opportunity for consideration of the guidelines by those of us in this place. Yet again we see a complete and utter lack of transparency. So who knows what inclusions will be in play? How do we know, for example, that the panel will not insist on union membership? I refer to the seven-member advisory panel that is appointed to draft the guidelines to oversee the fund. So immediately you would think, 'The guidelines haven't even been drafted yet, so how do we know what they'll be?' Well, the minister says they have got to cover various things in a few areas in a press release. But, no, the actual guidelines have not been drafted. And the seven-member panel does not include the Australian Childcare Alliance, which represents 70 per cent of centres. It does not have a seat at the table.

The seven-member panel also includes those who would actually be applying for funding for their centres. There is a bit of an inconsistency there. There could be a conflict of interest. They are good people. I am sure they will manage the conflict appropriately and professionally, but we are talking about the optics here: guidelines that have not been written, rules that have not been released and a minister who is saying on the one hand that this is how the system will work but on the other getting his departmental officials to say, 'You'll just have to wait and see the guidelines.' Who knows? Maybe the guidelines will say you do have to be a union member. I am sure they won't, because it would be absolutely reprehensible for them to.

If you are in the sector and you are considering applying for this funding and you have to write an EBA and you feel compelled and caught up in this because your workforce is saying, 'Will we be getting the extra money and how much will it be and when will it arrive in our pay packets?' and so on, then you are taking steps now to add hugely to your costs. You might be a small business; you might be a community centre with a hard-working volunteer board. The money has got to come from somewhere no matter which model you use. You will be working hard to fund the costs of an EBA. It is not something you can knock up at home when you are doing all your other work for your childcare centre. You have to pay an industrial lawyer and it is expensive. You do not even know, when you lodge the EBA, what the guidelines will be. You do not even know if you might meet those guidelines. You do know, however, that you will incur significant costs just to begin the process.

The panel will have responsibility for monitoring the fund over its two-year lifespan. It only lasts two years. It is apparently the case that one would write into the EBA that the wages will go up for two years and then go down. But we know that wages do not go down and expectations are built in. That is part of the reason why wages stay where they are. This raises further questions. If the panel deems a centre to be in breach of the guidelines somewhere through that two-year period, what action can be taken? Say, for example, a centre were to raise their fees, would the panel or the department have authority to cease their funding immediately? What would this mean for the workforce? If the two organisations represented on the panel are recipients of the fund, who will have oversight for them?

At the very least we really should delay debate on this bill until we have had an opportunity to review the guidelines. Why weren't the guidelines included in the explanatory memorandum at least so we can consider the impact of this selective fund on the sector as a whole? It is treating the sector with disdain and disrespect. As I said, the guidelines are incomplete and some of the minister's statements have not, to my mind, actually logically made sense and they have not given the assurances that they should to those who have skin in the game, who apply for the funds but ultimately will be paying the workforce in their centres.

One of the things that was mooted when this was announced does get referred to in the explanatory memorandum. It is not clear but it goes a bit like this: in order to access this fund you cannot as a centre be putting up your fees to your parents. It is meant to give parents assurance that fees will not rise beyond a certain level. Obviously fees are going to rise. They are going to rise in accordance with the National Quality Framework, the reducing ratios and the increased qualifications that staff members need to have. That is recognised widely. I think even the union itself has said fees are going up 11 per cent. So we know that fees are going up. But will this mean that, as a centre, you have to give someone from the department access to your statements and your books to determine whether your fee increases are reasonable or not? Will they be asking questions about your return on equity? Will they be interviewing your banks? Will they be monitoring how you run your business and saying, 'You shouldn't be putting fees up and if you did this, you wouldn't,' and so on? It is just not clear. If you apply for this money, you are inviting that sort of examination of your business practices, which I have not heard of and which is totally unreasonable.

Let us revert to the heart of the matter just for a moment. I appreciate we are talking about the likelihood of childcare workers and I understand for some listening that our opposition to this bill sounds like we might be kicking them. We are not opposing this bill because we do not believe they deserve a pay rise; we are opposing this bill because it is poorly designed and grossly inequitable. Those in the government, so anxious to appease members of the union and avoid the spat that would clearly arise if they had not given in on this occasion, will push this bill through, I am sure, with no regard to what is right and what is fair. Because, you know, the ugly underbelly to all of this is what happens to those union fees that are paid to United Voice. What happens to those $500 commitments from some of the most vulnerable, poorly paid workers in this country? They go straight back to the Labor Party to fund the election campaign, and that is a disgrace.

We on this side of the chamber cannot support a bill that will throw the childcare sector into turmoil and create massive division between workers who are always collegiate, who always share information and who belong to a special group that understands the special work they do but which is now being divided by sentiments such as: 'Well, I'm getting the pay rise. My centre's getting the pay rise, is yours? Well, you'd better come and work for us.' I was told today about an educator who resigned from her small centre, saying to her employer: 'It's not that I don't like working here—of course, everyone loves it here—but I've been told that if I move to this larger centre I'll get the pay rise. It's already sorted; I's is already locked in.' I am not going to name names here because that is not necessary, but I do want to assure people that I can give them that information. I can say that anyone who is assuring their workforce that they will get this pay rise deserves the strongest condemnation because we have not had the guidelines yet and we know that the fund can only cover a small proportion of the workforce.

We cannot support this bill. We do not believe in the division that it is creating in the sector. Australian families cannot afford to pay any more for child care. They have already seen increases of almost 26 per cent since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister. While we are all speculating about what might happen in the future, I do not think any Labor leader will act to decrease the cost of child care in this country any time soon.

I do want to assure those listening and the centres—whether they be community or private, small or large, corporate or family, in the country or in the suburbs—that we in the coalition understand how hard you work every day, whether you are running the centre and on the floor yourself or whether you are struggling to find the right people that you know you need in your centre to nurture the young people on the floor. We know how tough you are doing it and we also know how families struggle to fund the cost of child care. We have a plan that will stop the cost of child care soaring to levels which basically make it unaffordable and which mean that children exit into backyard arrangements, which are not good for them and not good for quality in this country.

We know the red-tape burden. It is no good for the minister and the government to say that this is all supposed to reduce red tape. Maybe it was supposed to, but it has not. When I see a childcare centre, I ask, 'How much time are you now allocating to compliance and how much time do you think you will do so once you have implemented these new arrangements?' We have seen that ratchet up. We have seen one whole job perhaps out of a staff of seven just dedicated to being in the office doing the paperwork. It is not good enough. We in the coalition believe, and we know, that we can act to reduce the red tape in centres. We also want to engage very cooperatively with everyone in this space to make sure that the costs do not rise at the rate they have and, therefore, put child care out of the reach of working families. I look forward to support for the coalition's position from the crossbenchers and I urge them to really seriously consider the divisive nature of this piece of legislation and to support the coalition's condemnation of it.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am incredibly proud to speak on this Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013 implementing the government's Early Years Quality Fund. I am particularly proud to do it at a time when recent debate on this sector has descended to an entirely new low. The offensive, outdated and incorrect mutterings of Judith Sloan and the like must be exposed for the rubbish that they are. The statements that have been made in recent days could, of course, just be dismissed as the dinosaur views of an irrelevant commentator, but sadly they are views that are shared by some of those opposite. They are views that other people have put on the record and supported and they are views that must be challenged for the sake of this critically important sector.

Our government is the first federal government in our nation's history to recognise the importance of the early years of a child's life through the early childhood education and care sector. We have led historic reforms to improve the quality of early childhood education and care through the national quality agenda. With more children in care than at any time in our nation's history, this is vital for our nation's future. Earlier this month I announced that there are now more than one million children using child care at any given time. Whilst in recent days—and from the contribution we have just heard—we have heard scaremongers talk about how people will be fleeing the sector, about reduction and people pulling children out of care, what we have actually seen is a rapid expansion following our government's efforts to massively increase the affordability of the sector. We are also improving the quality of child care so that every one of those one million children is able to get the best early learning opportunities possible.

We have seen conservative cheer squad member Judith Sloan label early childhood educators as 'dimwits'. This follows the opposition's own shadow minister referring to them as 'so-called early learning educators'. We see that this follows a pattern of ignorance. We have seen the member for Higgins say that the National Quality Framework is based on 'nothing in particular'. We have seen the member for Aston suggest that childcare quality improvements were 'for no discernible benefit'. The member for Herbert has even said that early childhood educators campaigning to be valued and to be paid fairly in Townsville were chasing the dollar and that they should do their job for the love of it.

The views opposite could be right. The NQF could have been based on nothing in particular—that is, if you disregard the decades and decades of compelling international and domestic research which clearly demonstrates otherwise. Early childhood professionals have absolutely had enough of this rubbish. I have had enough of this rubbish. So let us put the facts on the record. The research is now unequivocal that the first five years of a child's life are critical to their development, that it is a time when 90 per cent of brain development occurs, a time that sets up children for the rest of their lives. What happens in these early years will not just impact on them now but will also impact on social outcomes, on their future health outcomes and on their educational outcomes for years and years to come. Therefore, the quality of early childhood education and care provided is fundamentally important.

We know that there are two main drivers of quality in our early childhood settings: local child to staff ratios and the qualification standards of those staff. Early Childhood Australia has recently released an evidence brief which summarises these key drivers of quality. The research shows that higher numbers of staff to children are associated with important learning outcomes including more extensive language skills through increased opportunities for conversations with adults, increased literacy skills, improved general knowledge, more cooperative and positive behaviour with peers and with adults, and better concentration and attention skills. The research also shows that the most significant factors affecting quality are the qualifications and training of the staff. Children in early childhood education and care settings led by an educator with a bachelor's degree in early childhood show greater progress and achievement in language, in literacy, in numeracy and in learning and are better prepared for school compared to children in programs led by less qualified educators. These are the facts.

In addition, there are less reportable child accidents or serious incidents when educators with higher qualifications are employed. All of the research, including the OECD analysis, shows that qualified early childhood educators have a significant positive impact on early child development. This research is why our government has led reforms, in partnership with all of the states and territories of all different political persuasions, to ensure that we lift the qualifications of staff and that we improve staff to child ratios so that children can better learn and develop. The evidence is now clear that involvement and interaction between qualified early childhood educators and children is critical to driving better learning outcomes for children during their early years. Long gone are the days when childcare staff were regarded simply as babysitters. These are early childhood professionals and they must be recognised and they must be valued as such.

To support these standards our government is making a significant investment of over $190 million to train and retain a higher qualified early childhood education and care workforce. However, significant challenges still exist in developing a qualified workforce to meet the growing childcare needs of families. The Productivity Commission have made it clear that if we want to attract and retain qualified early childhood educators, wages will need to increase, particularly in long day care centres. We know that there are already many early childhood educators earning above award rates through their centres' current enterprise agreements. While the government supports more providers valuing and rewarding their staff at above award rates, we also have a key priority in that we want to ensure that child care remains affordable.

I am proud to say that with this bill the government will establish the Early Years Quality Fund with $300 million to support more long day care services to improve the wages of their early childhood educators. This Early Years Quality Fund is a historic step for early childhood educators. It is particularly important for Australian children who want to be able to form a bond with an early childhood professional who they are familiar with and not with a different educator each week. I know it is particularly important for the peace of mind of parents that they know that when they drop their child off in the morning they are dropping their child off with someone with whom they are familiar and have a strong bond with and affection for. Services that sign up will have to make a commitment to quality. They will also have to agree to limit fee increases and to provide transparent information so that Australian parents have all the information that is required to make the best choices for their family.

Not all employers will want to sign up to an enterprise agreement or indeed agree to the terms the government will put in place to ensure fee restraint and a commitment to delivering high quality child care. But we know that enterprise agreements are absolutely necessary to ensure that employers pass on the grants in wage increases to employees and grants will be contingent on these agreements being in place and supported through the processes available through the Fair Work Ombudsman. An enterprise agreement is the only mechanism available to protect this fund. We do not want it used to prop up revenue and we do not want it used to improve anyone's bottom line; we want it used for the wages of our hard-working early childhood educators and professionals. An enterprise agreement is the instrument to achieve wage increases unless the children's services award is increased. I recognise that this is a sector which has undertaken huge steps in recent years and while this bill establishes a fund for the long day care sector I also acknowledge that there are a range of critical early childhood educators who are working in other settings, who are working in family day care, who are working in out of school hours care and a range of other approved childcare services.

Our government also believes that the professionalism of the early childhood workforce needs to be recognised on a sustainable and permanent basis across the entire sector. We are really proud of our government's record in ensuring that lower paid workers can access permanent across-the-board wage increases. Our government abolished Work Choices. We introduced the Fair Work Act, which removed barriers to equal remuneration claims to be considered under federal workplace relations law, making possible equal pay claims under the federal system. This has already achieved some great results, which we have seen through the first successful pay equity decision for the social and community sector workers and it has encouraged other sectors to pursue cases to improve outcomes for low-paid workers. Our government will build on those achievements by investing a further $6.2 million to establish a specialist pay equity unit within the Fair Work Commission, which is due to start work from July 2013. The new unit will undertake research and data collection to inform matters related to pay equity under the Fair Work Act, modern award reviews and annual minimum wage decisions. These measures are laying the foundations for pay increases for feminised sectors like the children's services sector into the future.

These are substantial achievements and I really want to take a moment to acknowledge the role of the Big Steps campaign in generating wide support for addressing wages for early childhood educators across Australia. This was a broad-based campaign which won support from parents, from educators, from small and from major childcare providers right across the country. Thousands of educators across Australia held stalls, letterboxed, made signs, petitioned, held rallies and spoke passionately about the difference that educators make to children's lives. I can speak from firsthand experience of this: I received the letters, I received the emails, I received the tweets. We heard you loud and clear. In fact, your voice was heard in every town and city in the country. Your campaign made our community recognise that it is no longer good enough in Australia to entrust the development and the safety of our children with you and do nothing about the low level of remuneration attached to it.

I want to particularly also recognise the Big Steps team in my electorate of Adelaide in building support amongst our community for the professional sector. Unfortunately, despite the support generated in the community, the coalition are intent on destroying this bill, threatening wage increases for thousands of early childhood educators. If you listen to coalition speakers on this bill here today, you will not hear a single commitment to quality. You will hear no recognition that qualification standards and child-staff ratios are important. You will hear no recognition of the role that early childhood educators play in giving children a better start to life. You will hear no support for the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, which is delivering these improvements in childcare settings across Australia, despite the fact that every other state and territory government have signed up, because we all know that this is the critical way forward.

There is only one group that is left sitting out that has not recognised that. Sadly, it is the group that sits opposite me right now. We know that if the Liberals have their way, there will be no advancement of this important professional work and staff will continue to be deeply underpaid for their important work. For decades, early childhood workers have been lumped in with babysitters, with no appreciation for the role that they play as critical early childhood educators.

What started off as ignorant misunderstandings has now descended into the breathtakingly vile and malicious slander from the conservatives that we have heard from in recent days. I am here to say: it must stop now. Those opposite must abandon their Judith Sloan like dinosaur views. The facts must dictate the future policy in this critical area. And the evidence is compelling. The coalition just do not understand the hard work that all childcare centres across Australia have been putting in to improve the quality of child care for Australian children. Only Labor will make record improvements in early childhood education and care, as we have in the budget, with over $25 billion going to this sector over the next four years. We have demonstrated our commitment by the fact that we have now tripled expenditure in the area, compared to what those opposite were spending when last in government. Only Labor will continue to support services to improve the wages of early childhood educators and, importantly, give Australian children the best start in life, as all of the evidence shows it can do.

With this bill, our government is setting the path towards a quality early childhood sector that recognises early childhood educators as the professionals that they are and that values the work that they are doing in communities across Australia each and every day. I am absolutely proud to commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. Any piece of legislation introduced in this House in the area of childcare policy needs to have the express aim of improving the industry for providers and workers. It must ensure that child care is more affordable, more available and more flexible to the needs of Australian parents which, in turn, could improve workplace participation rates. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that a child is receiving the best, positive early experiences during their most critical period. Unfortunately, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill does not have any relevance whatsoever to these goals. It neither addresses any underlying problems in the sector and nor does it genuinely improve wages and conditions for workers.

This bill proposes to provide for a $300 million fund, over two years, to set up a special account to administer the Early Years Quality Fund to cover pay increases for some childcare workers. The government has proposed a two-year fund, with $135 million in the first year and $165 million in the second year. To qualify for funding for their employees, childcare providers enter into enterprise bargaining agreements, EBAs, and apply to a seven-member childcare advisory board, which will then determine who receives the funds. The explanatory memorandum states that these funds have the very laudable but lofty aim to retain qualified hardworking professionals in the sector and to reduce the numbers of educators leaving the sector overall. However, there are several very important concerns about this bill: the way it operates and, importantly, the way in which it affects providers and workers in the childcare sector.

The Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill and reported on 17 June 2013. The coalition senators of the committee published a dissenting report to highlight many of the concerns that we have and to highlight the concerns that stakeholders raised throughout the committee process. The Labor government introduced the bill into the House on 30 May 2013 and it was referred to the Senate committee that day. With their focus always on the latest leadership challenge rather than on proper governance, this gave stakeholders only six working days to make a submission. Fortunately, more than 62 individuals and organisations used that opportunity to note their opposition to the many stark deficiencies in this bill. As coalition senators remarked in the opening of their dissenting report:

Coalition Senators consider this bill to be among the least meritorious pieces of legislation put by the Government in the 43rd Parliament. It proposes and promotes inequality in the workplace, and in doing so, creates division and workplace disharmony.

That is a very blunt assessment of this bill. However, these comments are justified for two main reasons: firstly, the fund is a short-term fix which does nothing to foster real long-term wage growth in the early childhood sector, while many employers and employees are left out; and, secondly, this is a blatant attempt to favour unions and to increase unionisation within the workforce.

Important questions remain as to how many childcare workers will actually be covered under this fund. The United Voice union have been campaigning since 2008, with requests for wage increases ranging from $7 to $10 an hour. Their proposal was that the government fund the increase in full, to the tune of $1.4 billion per year and indexed afterwards. The proposal before us today is a far cry from that figure. It is only $300 million, which ceases after two years. Therefore, as the Senate committee has noted: 'Only up to 40 per cent of the workforce would be eligible for a wage increase.'

The primary problem with any increase in wages as a result of this bill is that it will not be targeted in such a way as to increase quality. Providers are already struggling to comply with the National Quality Framework, due to come into effect on 1 January 2014, and to ensure that they have the required number of qualified educators. I have heard already from long day care providers in my electorate who are concerned that they simply will not cope with further changes to the childcare system. They are worried about more red tape, more boxes to be ticked and more vague procedures to be followed.

I do note that at this stage the specific grant guidelines have not yet been determined, meaning stakeholders cannot determine whether the guidelines are in any way fair or reasonable. Instead, it appears that funds will be allocated on an ad-hoc basis to those who are able to submit a grant application to the 'advisory board' faster than another provider. Those who do not submit quickly will miss out, which will only result in differential wages for similar work between different centres. Furthermore, the grant is payable only to those working in long day care. It will not benefit those working in preschools, family day care, out of school hours care or other types of early childhood care or education. This creates division between workers at different providers and potentially even division between childcare workers at the same provider but in a different category of child care.

As the Chief Executive of the Child Care Centres Association of Victoria noted, there is the potential to distort the market locally—for example, where there are only two centres in an area, such as in a regional town. If one centre receives a grant, if for no other reason than it manage to submit the paperwork faster than another provider, how is a community supposed to perceive these changes to wages? Parents certainly cannot base their determinations on either the quality or the true affordability of the centre because it is receiving supplementary government funds. I expect such discrepancies to result in post-hoc disruptions across the country whereby employers deliberately poach the employees of another provider, further reinforcing a two-tiered system between those who do receive the government funds and those who do not.

In many submissions to the committee, concerns were raised about what might happen to those centres who do not receive grants. Given the relative mobility of childcare workers, will all providers now have to immediately offer a higher pay rate in order to keep staff, and then try to absorb those costs without passing them on to parents? The usual course for increases in wages arises through rulings of the Fair Work Commission, established by this government with responsibility for determining appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. I do not dispute that childcare educators are often low paid and that they are struggling, as are childcare providers. It is worth noting that unions, including United Voice, have refused to lodge a wage claim with Fair Work.

Relying on government funds to top up wages means, in this case, that $300 million is allocated for only the next two years. The question then is what will happen to the wages of employees once the funds run out. Providers will face the very tough decision of having to in fact reduce the wages. I expect, however, that many of those in the unions will be relying on providers and management maintaining their nominal wages rather than dropping pay rates. This would only create further tension in the workplace and providers will be forced to source those funds elsewhere. Often the only way that childcare providers can do this is by passing on the costs to the parents, who are already struggling with skyrocketing childcare costs. This is not a desirable outcome for providers, their employees or parents who use childcare services.

One of the central tenets of this bill is that employees in the childcare sector will only be eligible for a grant if they are covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement. At present, according to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, only 20 per cent of providers currently have an EBA with their employees. This is reflective of the way in which this market operates. Often a provider may run only one or two centres with a small number of employees, where an EBA is not necessarily the most appropriate workplace structure. There will be cases where this is an EBA which covers not just long day care workers but also those in preschools, family day care, out of school hours care and others, and then all workers may have to vote for an amendment to the EBA to cover wage increases for only the long day care workers. Those other workers will be rightly wondering why they are being asked to approve wage increases for others when they themselves are not deemed worthy of a pay rise. As the coalition senators have noted, such a ballot being required would only involve great 'cost, inconvenience, confusion, anger, disappointment and ultimately disputation' and would only promote disharmony between the employees.

However, unions such as United Voice have used this bill as an opportunity to launch an orchestrated campaign to encourage workers to unionise, even when the unions know that there is no guarantee of a wage increase for those who join. The union has made other spurious claims, including telling workers that if they do not sign up their colleagues will not receive a pay rise or that joining will guarantee a pay rise. This led the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to write to United Voice in April this year to remind them that 'union membership is not a prerequisite to potentially receive a pay rise'.

When appearing before the committee, Mr Michael Crosby from United Voice admitted that legislating and funnelling a wage increase through EBAs will benefit his union. He said:

Any enterprise agreement helps unions to sign up members, there is just no doubt about that … Every enterprise agreement we do starts off with a message to workers to join the unions … I heard this attack, and I saw it in the Australian yesterday, that we are using this to sign up workers. Of course we are.

Every worker has the right to voluntarily join a union if they believe it will serve their interests. What I strongly object to is this Labor government introducing legislation that serves only the interests of the unions and not their members. As I have said, in this case the vast majority of workers will not see a wage increase whether they join the union or not.

It is therefore unsettling to see evidence in submissions to the committee about intimidating behaviour from the union and its members. The Australian Childcare Alliance, or the ACA, informed the committee:

Many of our members have reported that … union activity has been intimidating to both themselves and their staff. Our members around Australia have been advising us of the strong arm tactics of the United Voice Union organisers who have been telling members that they must have 60 per cent plus membership to engage with them to submit the Enterprise Agreement.

The ACA also indicated its concern that United Voice may have breached privacy laws in making public information about approved providers and educators:

The ACA President has had a photo of her home posted by a union organiser on the Big Steps Facebook Page with disparaging comments and also on the same organiser's personal Facebook page and her personal email address advertised to the general union membership.

Any breaches of privacy or the targeting of individuals are not acceptable. I note that the union involved has not apologised for the actions of its members.

The coalition recognises the importance of affordable child care to help Australian families meet increasing cost-of-living pressures, especially as the need for a second income has become more important for more Australian families. We support improved standards and conditions for early childhood educators to ensure quality care is provided to all Australian children, but we are very mindful that child care must also be affordable. Ultimately, this is a poorly designed and inequitable proposal which will have a far-reaching negative impact on the sector. The coalition opposes this bill.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Early childhood education and care is obviously an essential service. Clearly it has a long-lasting effect on the children in that care and clearly it allows a great many parents to return to the workforce. It is a very important part of Australia's education system and should be resourced and recognised accordingly. But I do worry that early childhood education is an industry in crisis. A junior early childhood educator—someone with a certificate III—is paid only about $18.58 an hour. It escapes me why we pay so little to the people who care for our most precious people. I do not understand why those who care for our children and those who care for our aged are some of the worst-paid people in our workforce. For heaven's sake, you can get $22 an hour packing the shelves at one of Australia's supermarkets, yet we put our most precious little children and older Australians in the care of people who are earning substantially less. With the cost of living in this country, you cannot run a household and be all that you want to be on $30,000 or $40,000 a year. No wonder something like 180 early childhood educators are leaving the sector each and every week.

I know how hard this is for those people. I was very proud to take part in the United Voice Big Steps Walk in My Shoes campaign, where I was able to work as a childcare worker for just a few hours. I have two young children, so I know about the demands of looking after children, but I have to say that, after a few hours in this one relatively small and very well run centre, I was run ragged—and I was able to walk out at lunchtime. How the rest of the staff stayed on and did their jobs for the rest of the day and the next day escapes me. So I will support this bill by the government. I think the injection of $300 million into the sector is a positive development and worth supporting. But I cannot support it without expressing a number of serious concerns.

The shortfall in funding to ensure that our early childhood educators are paid appropriately in this country is something like $1.4 billion each year; so, while I applaud the government for chipping in $300 million, I condemn the government for not funding this reform properly. The result, as we know, is that only 40 per cent of early childhood educators will see a pay rise, which means that 60 per cent of early childhood educators will not see a pay rise in all sorts of situations, including caring for children in their own home. It is not fair that 60 per cent of early childhood educators will be forced to continue to go about their work and live on $30,000 or $40,000 a year. That is unfair. I make the point that I have made many times already in this place: we live in one of the richest, cleverest and most fortunate countries in the world. There is enough money to ensure that all Australians have a reasonable standard of living. There is enough money in this country to ensure that the people who look after our young children and our elderly get paid a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.

I will support the government's bill, but I will only support it because there is no chance of getting the full $1.4 billion. I am certainly not going to stand in the way of the $300 million. I do call on the government to look again at the figures. It is fortunate that the Treasurer has joined us. I call on the Treasurer, if he is the Treasurer after the next election, to look afresh at this issue and to see whether our early childhood educators can be fully funded in the next federal budget. I call on the alternative government, if they are successful at the election later this year, to look afresh at this. The comments that have been made by speakers I have already heard today suggest that you well understand that our early childhood educators should all get a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Based on what the alternative government has said in here today I would hope that, if they are successful—I see the Leader of the Opposition has walked into the chamber. I call on the Leader of the Opposition: if you are successful at the next election, look afresh at this and commit to fully funding the shortfall in the pays of our early childhood educators. Three hundred million dollars is a good start, but it is not the $1.4 billion that is required.

I again make the point that it beggars belief that in this country we put the most important people in our community—our very young and our very old—in the care of the lowest-paid workers in this country. Surely that can be rectified. Surely Australia is rich enough to rectify that. It is all about priorities. The federal budget is maybe $350 billion a year. Surely there is enough money that with careful planning we can ensure that our early childhood educators are not being forced to scrape by on $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000 a year. No-one in this place would try to do that; we should not be making other people do that.

I will support the bill, but I do it with the important qualification that the government should not crow too loudly. They should have gone much further and they should have stumped up the full $1.4 billion that is needed to ensure our early childhood educators get a decent day's pay for a decent day's work.

Debate interrupted.