Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government making life harder for Australian families by cutting funding to family day care.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

On this side of the House, we know that not just for years but for decades family day care has been a vital part of the support networks which Australian families rely upon in order to balance work and family. We know that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Australian families and Australian children who have received quality early childhood education and care over the decades from family day care. We stand in this matter of public importance to say that Labor will stand up against the Abbott government taking an axe to that sector by slashing their funding and the devastating consequences that that will have for the sector, for the children and for the educators who work each and every day.

Every day we come into this place we cite another example of a broken promise from this government, another example of this government saying very specifically to the Australian public before the election about what they would do if they were elected and then coming into this House after the election and doing the exact opposite. Sadly, today is no different. Just before the election Tony Abbott wrote to every single childcare centre in the nation and stated:

I am determined to help make child care more accessible and affordable for parents.

He also promised flexibility. The first two sentences of their childcare policy explains:

The Coalition believes Australian families deserve greater choice when it comes to child care.

Our child care system should be responsive to the needs of today's families and today's economy, not the five-day, 9am to 5pm working week of the last century.

Well, haven't we seen something completely different since those opposite were elected. Since those opposite were elected, we have seen over a billion dollars in cuts to our childcare sector, impacting on the affordability for each and every family relying on assistance from government.

Sadly, when it comes to the family day care sector, we have seen that the Prime Minister's budget delivered to $157 million in cuts to family day care services. There is a long list of childcare services which have already been cut back or abolished completely by this government. They have already ripped $450 million out of outside school hours care. They have already cut support to help parents complete study to get back to work. They have already completely cut the program that was in place to increase childcare places in areas where parents face lengthy waiting lists. We know they have cut all of the funding from Indigenous child and family centres. We know they have reduced the funding for the child care rebate by $105 million, that they still have plans to cut $230 million out of the means tested child care benefit and, of course, now we focus on the $157 million being stripped out a family day care services.

Let us in this place make absolutely no mistake just to match that is going to hurt sector and, importantly, hurt the parents who rely upon the services each and every day. Based on information which has been provided by the government, we now learn that the cut will mean that over 80 per cent of the family day care services are likely to have their funding cut next year because of this one cruel attack. According to the most recent figures, there are 761 family day care services around the country. This means that over 600 of them will have their funding cut from next year. We know that in Western Sydney 100 per cent of family day care services will have their funding cut next year. We also know that instead the government seems determined to make family day care more expensive, less accessible and even harder for families to choose this as their flexible form of care.

Family Day Care Australia has outlined exactly what this will mean the sector and for parents when they said that these cuts will mean that family day care fees will be estimated to increase by $35 a week just to cover this one budget cut. In fact, CEO Carla Northam said:

Costs will ultimately have to be passed on to families, most of whom are already struggling to afford childcare fees. Without this funding it will be impossible for many family day care services to remain viable.

So those opposite who, before the election, promised, directly from the Prime Minister, every childcare centre in the country they would make child care more affordable, have left just two doors open for these family day care services. They can hike their fees and slug parents $35 more per week or they can close their doors. We on this side of the House so that neither of those options are acceptable, that this government needs to get on with delivering what they said they would do not just be railroaded by the Treasury, having each and every one of their programs cut, equalling over $1 billion already.

Members and senators on both sides right around Australia would have received hundreds of letters and cards from parents urging them to stand up against these cuts, to review the proposed changes to this funding program. In most cases, we know that family day care services will be forced to increase their fees, but we also know that some are reconsidering the viability of their service. Cape York family day care at Weipa wrote to inform the government that its service was unsustainable without this funding. They stated in their media release:

Due to this impossible funding reduction the Weipa Community Care Association Management Committee—

who auspice the family day care scheme—

has determined to close the service as of 31st December.

Those opposite promised the world to parents and to the childcare sector but they are overseeing the shutting down of services. Last week I visited Awesome Family Day Care at Newington and talked with one of the educators, Helen, who told me she was really worried that her families will not be able to afford the inevitable fee hikes. Fairfield City Council says that families living in Fairfield include some of the most disadvantaged within the metropolitan area and:

Should these changes take effect in their current form and time frame, council will be required to make the difficult decision that may include significant fee increases to families, reduce support to the family day care educators and possibly even the closure of the services.

I hope those opposite feel proud about that. I hope those opposite feel proud that they promised one thing and they are doing exactly the opposite—they are cutting the vital services that all of these families rely upon. We know that family day care is a unique model of care, which allows the greater flexibility than many other sorts. Family day care does not need to be stuck in the hours nine to five. It has a flexibility that can help and match parents' working hours. In fact, when those opposite claim that they want to see increased flexibility—and we know that they are obsessed by nannies and au pairs—family day care has the capacity to deliver this increased flexibility but not if it is gutted first by the Abbott government and by the assistant minister who is consistently rolled to the point that she has now lost a billion dollars out of existing childcare programs. Isn't that something to be proud of?

We know that there is a pattern of attack from the Abbott government. Low- and middle-income families are doing the heavy lifting for this government in their unfair and heartless budget. We know that those opposite asked the Productivity Commission to completely redesign Australia's childcare system, promising all things to all people but only guaranteeing that there would be no additional money. The government simply cannot meet all of these expectations, but we know that the Productivity Commission has provided a draft report and just this week released analysis which shows that families earning as little as $40,000 you would you will solve under the PCs preferred model. This government which promised that child care would become more affordable have already cut a billion dollars, have already seen a system where $157 million being ripped out of family day car will see many services having to hike their fees by $35 a week and now they have set up a review which will is recommending changes which will see families on as little as $40,000 have their assistance cut.

It is time to end their magic pudding statements and promises and for this government to level with the Australian public. It is time for those opposite to guarantee that they will not accept any proposals that will make child care less affordable for Australian families. They have said one thing and we will now hear from those opposite that they are actually unable to do anything other than point the finger at the Labor Party—blame it on me; blame it on Labor—but a billion dollars has been cut from the program under their watch and $157 million has been cut from family day care in their budget on their watch that they must justify.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot stand here as minister and be lectured by the previous childcare minister who saw under her watch childcare costs go up 53 per cent in six years and out-of-pocket costs for families go up 40 per cent in four years. This is the test by which the Labor government when in government will be judged.

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

Member for Adelaide, I sat and listened to you and I think it is appropriate for you to either listen to me or you leave—I do not mind which.

Families measure these things by affordability: how much do I pay for my out-of-pocket costs after childcare benefit and rebate to my childcare centre? In four years under Labor, under the member for Adelaide as the minister, those costs went up 40 per cent.

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

How much do you pay now?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Adelaide, you have had your opportunity.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make some remarks about the Community Support Program, which is the program under which the support for family day care has been delivered in the past and will continue to be delivered in the future. The purpose of this program is to help services in unviable areas, such as disadvantaged, regional and remote communities. But, unfortunately, this program has become yet another example of Labor's legacy of debt and financial mismanagement.

The overspend in its budget allocation was $200 million over three years. Here we have a program, which is meant to help every single type of child care—family day care, out-of-school hours, long day care—that has blown its budget by over $200 million. Seventy per cent of that entire budget is going to one single type of child care. The point is this: the Auditor-General highlighted this to the member for Adelaide, as the minister, in 2012 and made specific recommendations contained within a performance audit. They said, 'Seventy-one per cent of community support funding is going to family day care, which accounts for just 10 per cent of children in care'—and Labor does nothing to fix the problem.

The changes we are making to the eligibility criteria bring this type of child care into line with other types of child care. A budget is blown by over $200 million, an Auditor-General warns the member for Adelaide as minister and, of course, she sits on her hands while out-of-pocket costs go up for families by 40 per cent.

The member for Adelaide also mentioned in scoop-up of apparent cuts that we have made something that she made as minister—or her government made—which was the change to the childcare rebate. Remember the childcare rebate indexation pause—something announced by the Labor government but they did not have the guts to legislate it. They did not have the guts to carry it through, and they left it to us to pick up when we came into government—to fix up their mess. This is no different to all of the other Labor messes that we have inherited. The legacy of Labor is this messy concoction of red tape, band-aid solutions and, ultimately, the final test—it costs parents more. It is another example of Labor continuing to put politics before parents.

While we are talking about promises and legacies, let's consider the hallmark policy of the member for Adelaide, who brings forth this motion—the Early Years Quality Fund; the dodgy slush fund designed to drive union membership in the sector; a short-term pay rise for just 15 per cent of the entire workforce, designed to shore up this member and the Labor Party in an absolutely shocking, dirty deal never before seen by anyone on either side of this House. That is the hallmark policy of this member for Adelaide as minister—completely irresponsible at the moment, as she was completely irresponsible in government.

The member for Adelaide raised concerns about the family day care sector, and I want to address those in all seriousness. I want to make clear that as minister, I support the family day care sector. I have used it as a mum, albeit many years ago. I visit family day care providers, educators and coordination units all around the country every day, every week.

I am in touch with the educators. I am in touch with their services, and many come to my office to talk about the challenges that are before them. I do not downplay that in some cases there will be challenges; but let's remember an important feature: what we are doing is bringing this program back into line with its original intention. Seventy per cent of the funding of which the member Adelaide speaks, funding designated for disadvantaged rural and regional communities, ended up in our major cities, in major urbanised competitive markets. A funding stream designed to support market failure, if you like or rural, and regional and remote—an area I am very familiar with, as we all are on this side of the House—ended up landing and being paid to services in our major cities. Remember: the budget was well blown before this.

What we are doing is bringing this back under control and, from 1 July next year, services will be able to apply for this funding. If they are experiencing those exceptional circumstances and if they are disadvantaged, there is every chance that they will receive it.

The other important point I want to make—and I want to reassure families who might be listening to this broadcast who might be caught up in the scaremongering nonsense from the member Adelaide—is that the Community Support Program is not a fee assistance program. It is not money paid to educators. It is not money paid to parents. It does not alter the amount or the ability of parents using approved services to claim the childcare benefit and rebate. In fact, families using family day care still get the childcare benefit. They still get the childcare rebate—in fact, they get a childcare benefit that is 33 per cent higher than that of parents who use long day care. So they already recognise that there are additional supports for the parents who use these services.

We have to recognise that, in making changes to the family day care sector, we are supporting the sector to put it on a more sustainable footing for the future.

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

The member for Adelaide mentioned Weipa. After the article from which she quoted appeared in the press, it was in fact brought to my attention by the member for Leichhardt, who asked me to travel to Weipa, which I did at relatively short notice. I spoke to the centre involved—I also spoke to one at Cooktown on the way, and I have to say that there was a pretty amazing family day care educator there, as there are everywhere—and I said, 'We need to make changes to a system where the coordination unit has only one or two educators attached to it. We may not be able to continue making the same level of payment to a coordination unit designed to support a greater number of educators, but we do want family day care to continue in Weipa.'

I worked very closely—and I am still working closely—with the member for Leichhardt. In order to help the sector adjust to this change we are rolling out business advice across the country through the family day care peak bodies, because they have recognised that these are important changes that services may need to make to ensure that they are sustainable into the future. That business advice will be made available to the Weipa service and to every other service that puts up its hand and says, 'Look, we might need help.'

There are lots of different ways that you can run this model. Remember: a family day care educator in their home is a home based business, and the coordination unit, which does a great job in supporting them, can have a differing set of arrangements with them as we move forward into a new era for family day care. Let's not forget that family day care was recognised by the Productivity Commission inquiry, and is recognised by us in government, as a vital sector for the future. The member for Adelaide is quite right: the flexible care that families demand is often provided by family day care.

But I come back to my main point. We cannot stand here as the Liberal and National parties, understanding rural and regional communities as we do, and do nothing when this program, designed to support disadvantaged rural and regional communities, has overspent its budget by $200 million. The Labor Party were warned by the Auditor-General—who did a performance audit of this program—that this really was out of line, and they did nothing about it. They were too frightened to take action. They were too frightened to make the tough decisions, and they handballed it to us, just like all of the other decisions that were handballed to us, as we came into government. We are bringing that program back under control. We will continue to support the services for which the program was originally designed.

But remember this: under Labor, childcare costs went up 53 per cent, flexibility went down, affordability went down and availability went down. We inherited a system close to breaking point. This Labor party could not even support our Productivity Commission inquiry. They could not even say, 'Yes, it is a good idea to have a look at future arrangements and make changes for the benefit of families.' This Labor Party is a disgrace.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take up a few points that the Assistant Minister for Education just made, and I have to say that they are quite extraordinary. She said that she supports family day care. Well, not in my electorate and not in Western Sydney, where every single family day care service has been told that its funding will be cut—every single one. We know that many of those will be forced to close as a result of it. If that happens to even one family day care service, 1,700 families will be without a place. So how can the minister say that she supports family day care when in all of Western Sydney she is cutting it completely?

She says that, if there are people with genuine disadvantage, there will be family day care services for them. I suggest that the minister get out more. How can she possibly think that there are not casual cleaners in Western Sydney who need the flexibility of low-cost, affordable, quality family day care that starts at five in the morning? I know that a number of family day care providers in my electorate do just that. I fact, some of them even pick the children up at five in the morning because the parents work shiftwork. To assume that that does not happen in Western Sydney and to actually cut the funding from family day care and leave those families in the lurch and then you say you care is quite extraordinary.

A new era in family day care, which the assistant minister spruiks, is actually a loss of family day care. I want to talk about what it is actually worth in my community, because it is not just about affordability and flexibility in time in the area of Parramatta. In the community of Parramatta we also have family day care services that specialise in one language or another. For example, we have a group of Korean family day care educators who speak to their charges in Korean, because in those early years of their life their parents have made the choice as parents to have their children initially speak the language of their great-grandparents. Korean families do that quite frequently. We have women from the African community who have had themselves educated into this field and now operate family day care services in various African languages. We now have a group of 20 Hazara women who have put themselves through training so that they can work in this field and educate young children under the age of four in the language of those children's great-grandparents.

This is an extraordinary thing. We have families in Parramatta who choose to have their children educated through this system because it allows the flexibility. These are not well-off parents. They are quite often working as casual cleaners, as nurses, as aged-care workers and are shiftworkers, who need the flexibility and have found a way to make a choice as parents to ensure that the culture of their children survives through the next generation and the next generation after that. That is a great gift to this nation. As the world becomes smaller, this is a major part of what they do.

We have families in my community who have dietary requirements. I have Hindus who are very strict—do not eat chili, garlic or onion. I have people who are vegetarians and I have people who eat halal. You name it, I have it. We have family day care providers in Parramatta who actually provide the flexibility to match the services they offer with the working hours of the parents and the cultural requirements of the child and the cultural decisions of their parents. I cannot imagine, as we look at Australia moving into the future, that this is the program that you would cut. Of all the things we do that prepare our children for the future world and what the world will look like, I cannot believe that this is the program that you cut.

I cannot believe that you can do this to people who are increasingly casualised, who do not have the certainty of working hours that we used to have, who cannot guarantee that they can get their child and keep their child in a standard nine-to-five five-day-a-week place. This service provides them with certainty. As their working hours shift from day to day, this provides them with the certainty of good quality care for their children. It provides parents with the flexibility they need when it comes to cultural diversity, including dietary requirements. Children who have hearing impairments or visual impairments can actually have family day care service providers who talk to them in Auslan or teach them braille.

This is the service that you want in modern Australia, and this is the service that we want as we prepare our children for the future. This is not the one that you would cut. It actually deserves the support of the minister and it deserves a new era. In Western Sydney it deserves a better one. (Time expired)

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI could easily have included words like 'sanctimony' and 'hypocrisy', given Labor's record on the economy and in policy areas like child care. Consider that we have an MPI that talks about how hard life is for Australian families when we remember that those opposite gave Australian families the carbon tax and, on average, $550 costs on each and every Australian family.

The member for Adelaide had the audacity to talk about magic puddings—but we remember that those opposite, from 2008 to 2013, produced an economy that had $200 billion in achieved deficits, $123 billion of projected deficits across the forward estimates, and peak debt rising to $667 billion. So please do not talk to us about magic puddings, Member for Adelaide, when you have that sort of record to draw on.

The member for Adelaide also had the audacity to talk about promises relating to child care. I know you will be familiar, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the promises made during the 2007 election by Mr Rudd, who became Prime Minister. He talked about grand aspirations. There was GroceryWatch to make your groceries cheaper, there was Fuelwatch to make fuel cheaper, there was child care that was going to make childcare cheaper. Everything was going to be cheaper, better, brighter, more 'Kevin'. But, as we found out, it was a government long on aspiration and very, very short on delivery. Despite promising affordable child care, childcare fees skyrocketed by 53 per cent under the Labor government. There was $73 a week extra in fees, or around $3,500 more each year for a family, using the average hours of child care. What they left behind was grossly inefficient. I have seen it firsthand. I have seen that 1,200-kilometre screwdriver here in Canberra, with the member for Adelaide turning the screws on the childcare operators, who stand there filling in regulatory forms unnecessarily rather than doing their primary jobs. As I have gone around the childcare centres, they have told me a very different story to the one we heard from the member for Adelaide here today. We saw 21,000 new regulations under Labor, many of those impacting the childcare sector.

The member for Adelaide, who brought on this MPI, failed to discuss the elephant in the room. I have an article here from The Australian. It is headed, 'Rudd government scraps promise to build 260 childcare centres'. The member for Adelaide had a wonderful little media release which said that they were going to stop at 38. The lesson that I draw from that is that you take what the member for Adelaide says, you divide it by seven, and you are somewhere close to the truth—when you think about 38 achieved and 260 promised.

When it comes to promises by the member for Adelaide and her colleagues, what we find is that Labor cut millions in funding for occasional care from July 2010. This was a cut that hit rural and regional areas particularly hard—including in my home state of Tasmania, where occasional care is often needed because of those seasonal work imperatives like harvesting and shearing. Labor pandered to their union mates, as you have heard from the minister, by creating a $300 million Early Years Quality Fund with taxpayers' money, which turned out to be nothing more than a union membership recruiting drive for United Voice. Now Labor continues their irresponsibility in opposition, blocking their own promises to pause indexation on the childcare rebate, despite banking $105 million of savings in their own election promises. They were eventually shamed into supporting their own budget measure; however, as we all know, they continue to block many, many other key savings measures across the government and particularly in the childcare portfolio. So spare us the sanctimonious MPI, Member for Adelaide, and reflect on the appalling mess that you and your colleagues have left.

I will finish by thanking the minister for repeatedly visiting northern Tasmania to consult and discuss these issues with childcare providers. Some family day care schemes have told us that they know Labor's magic pudding money would never have continued and that they are making transitional arrangements. They are listening to the minister's advice about a business development package that the government is developing for family day care services in partnership with the sector's peak bodies, and the minister is out there every day explaining how Labor's mismanagement caused this problem and what we are doing to fix the appalling mess left to us by the former government.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Bass: thank you for that enlightening contribution. Thank you for that history lesson. One of the most interesting elements of the history lesson was the airbrushing out of Real Solutions. Rightly so. I would be embarrassed by its content and by the shameless way in which this government and its members have walked away from the promises contained within it. Let us never forget all the broken promises of our Prime Minister.

Ms Ryan interjecting—

It's a contract, the member for Lalor reminds me. He promised to raise standards of public trust. Of all his broken promises, that is the most egregious. We are one year into this government and the member for Bass had nothing to say about its work. We heard supercharged rhetoric, as we have come to expect, about sanctimony and hypocrisy. These are terms that he should understand well. He talked about promises in the childcare space. I thought that was interesting—not the promises made by the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister. Funny that.

There is one thing I should touch on before going to the substance of this matter of public importance. The way in which members of this government treat our early childhood educators with contempt never fails to disappoint me. These are hardworking people doing important work. They can have a go at us; they can have a go at our policies, but the manner in which these workers have been treated by many members of this government is just shocking. This is a matter of public importance, and I am pleased to join the member for Parramatta and the member for Adelaide in arguing for family day centres and recognising the role they can play in making life easier for working families and doing great work in terms of the development of the children in those families.

Earlier today, Labor members spoke about the NATSEM modelling. The thing that struck me most about the NATSEM modelling was what it shows about the medium-term impact on low-income families, particularly single-parent families.

Ms Scott interjecting—

It's funny, I understand? I am staggered by the contempt for working people that we get from members opposite.

On Monday, the member for Charlton moved a motion that called on the government to reverse its cuts to the area of family day care. In that debate, I was again disappointed by the contribution of government members, who just hid behind a couple of furphies—the furphy that, because there apparently have been rorts, we should bring the whole thing to an end and the furphy that this is not a cut. Well, I do not think we need detain ourselves too long on that point.

Child care is vital for over one million Australian families, including my own. I was struck, as members on this side were, by the Grattan Institute's recent research findings that investment in child care is twice as effective in boosting employment participation as paid parental leave, the signature policy of this government. I am sure the legislation will be just around the corner! It is in this context that we see the government's promises and priorities at large, where PPL again is a significant priority, while promises to improve affordability and accessibility of child care have fallen away. Within this broader context, we note the savage cuts that are impacting on family day care—a $157 million broken promise, putting services at risk and asking hardworking families tough questions that they do not have good answers to, in many cases.

The impact on Scullin will be very significant. There are nine centres operating, all of which are deeply concerned. I have been talking to parents to find out what family day care means to them, how it works for them, and I have been visiting centres. I was deeply affected by visiting Boori Children's Services in Epping, operated by the City of Whittlesea, facing an $85,000 cut. I would like to share with the House what that service being at risk means to the families there as well as to the 26 hardworking professional educators. One of them, Karen, has been there 20 years. She started as a parent herself and has maintained a close connection with all those families in the Epping community, giving them the benefit of the flexibility as well as the close relationship and the high-quality professional care and education that these educators can offer. These are so important to people in outer suburban communities like many in Scullin, including Epping and South Morang.

Family day care has to be a critical part of meeting our childcare challenge. It has been for 35 years. Doing the best for all working families to have choices in respect of child care is fundamentally important to the wellbeing of those families now and to the future prospects of their children. (Time expired)

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Assistant Minister for Education, who is here in the chamber with us today. The Assistant Minister for Education, I would like to advise the member for Parramatta, is actually no stranger to Western Sydney. In fact, the Assistant Minister for Education has been to Western Sydney on many, many occasions both before and after the election. I have taken her to childcare centres. I have actually had two lots of roundtable forums with the minister, before the election and after the election. She has met with childcare service providers right across the region. So the minister has been very helpful in this space. The minister truly understands the childcare concerns of the people in Western Sydney. Once again, Minister, I would really like to thank you for your encouragement and your support. The minister has worked very hard in that space. The minister has got together with the Productivity Commission on child care.

Do you know what the people of Western Sydney demand? They demand affordable and flexible child care. Under those opposite, we saw of an increase of 53 per cent in the costs for child care. Two-thirds of the workforce of Lindsay have to commute for work every single day, in peak hour traffic there and peak hour traffic back. These are things that concern the people of my electorate of Lindsay. Fifty-three per cent increases in childcare costs do not help working families in Western Sydney—not at all. Those opposite are so sanctimonious about this. They are actually hurting the people of Western Sydney. Those opposite brought in 21,000 new regulations, many of them applying to child care. That hurt the people of Western Sydney.

I have a letter here today from Steve Robinson, who runs a childcare centre in my electorate of Lindsay. Let me quote:

Since the Abbott government came to office, Little Cottage Pre-School are achieving 100% bookings every day for the first time in living memory.

Steve Robinson advises that they even have advance bookings and a wait list. This is ensuring Steve can have a full complement of staff every day. It is a family owned and operated childcare centre which employs local people. I have visited this centre. Under those opposite, Steve actually worked for free at night to meet the demands of regulation that those opposite imposed on this childcare centre. The proximity of this childcare centre to the CBD of Penrith enables parents who work there to have easy access to their children. They can drop their kids off, get to work and come back again. In Steve's opinion, the assessment process instigated by the minister has been thorough and professional, delivering a childcare model aimed at assisting the industry to flourish and prosper. Steve's preschool is a lot more settled now and looking to a bright and long future providing care to children for parents who live and work in the Penrith region.

One issue he did raise was the threats of unions to take strike action to have wages raised in the sector. Currently the payment guidelines help to ensure core costs are within a range that most people can afford. Any rise in wages would obviously have a massive impact on childcare costs and potentially a negative effect on the ability of some families to afford legitimate professional child care. That is directly from a service provider in my electorate of Lindsay who is caring for children every single day.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a family day care provider.

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite can sit there and harp on, but at the end of the day they are solely responsible for a 53 per cent increase in cost of child care over the last six years.

In regard to further operational matters of family day care services, this is not a fee assistance program and is not paid directly to educators or parents. Labor really took their eye off the ball when it came to the Community Support Program. The budget blew out by $200 million. This included Labor ignoring the 2012 Australian National Audit Office report highlighting the growing problem with the Community Support Program and recommending its eligibility guidelines be reviewed. The Australian National Audit Office report further noted that family day care was receiving 71 per cent of the total Community Support Program budget despite only caring for about 10 per cent of the children. This is completely unsustainable, completely irrational and goes to show that those opposite had taken their eyes off the ball and were not providing true support for the people of Western Sydney.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I relish the opportunity to speak this afternoon on this matter of public important. I am honoured to follow the speakers from this side who have spoken before me, because on this side of the chamber, as you can hear today in this debate, there is a passion fore child care—a passion that is sorely lacking on the other side of this chamber. It is to do with the way Labor develops policy—what drives us and motivates us when we develop and implement policy.

I want to talk today a little bit about a link back to the past. We heard in question time a lot of links back to the past—our past, Labor's past, celebration of Labor's achievements—and we have done a lot of that this week. Gough Whitlam's government changed the paradigm of tertiary education. Under the Whitlam government, we remember, free university education was introduced. It was introduced to shift people's thinking, to radically change the way people thought about tertiary education. It opened up that education system. It made it affordable. It created aspiration. It created access. It changed Australian in doing to. It meant an increased number of women. It increased participation rates of women. It increased participation rates of, critically, mature-age students who were women, and that changed children's lives.

Gough Whitlam's government changed lives and, like that, what the previous Labor government did in the childcare space was aiming to do a similar thing, to change that paradigm, to change child care from the cheap, cheerful model that those opposite would like us to have to one that is educative, where children get care and learning. It was huge. And what do we have today? We have an MPI where all they are talking about over there is money and all we are talking about over here is quality.

We introduced the quality framework and understand on this side of the chamber—and have done forever—that to change a paradigm you might need to kick in with some funding. We have lots of negatives from the other side of the House about budget blow-outs. You cannot change a paradigm without increasing participation in a program. The budget blow-out, as they call it, reflects increased participation from women in the workforce, something we celebrate on this side of the chamber.

We changed the way the service operated. Recently in my electorate I went to visit family day care centres like all of us have over here. We have 33 providers in Lalor, all of which have been told that they may be at risk of losing their funding. That is 33 providers across an enormous number of educators. When I went to visit a few of them, what struck me was how the sector had shifted. I was someone who used family day care when my children were young. I saw a marked difference. I met people who were running family day care in their homes who were incredibly proud of the work they had done in quality frameworks, who were incredibly proud of their qualifications, who talked as educators about the children they were looking after, who were able to take me to a visual that showed me what those children had been learning in the last three months and to plans for what they were going to put in place for each child into the future. That is what you call shifting a paradigm. That is not a cheap and cheerful model; that is the model we need for modern Australia.

I think one of the important things we have to note in this MPI is, of course, money. We have to talk about money because we have to talk about the fact that Labor built a changed expectation. Labor built aspiration. Labor provided money to family day care that allowed in my electorate shift workers like those who work in the prison system to have their children in family day care. I heard from families whose wives had been employed because they found this model locally. Family day care operators were working specifically with shift working families.

But we have had the cuts. We are going to pull this back because Labor builds and those opposite tear it down. The cuts they are introducing to child care will tear down this sector. We hear a lot about the unionisation of the workforce as if somehow that is a negative. The unionisation of the childcare workforce is about women—mostly—in the workforce collectively bargaining for a better deal for themselves and for the children they care for.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start off by saying that we all care about child care. I find it offensive—and so do my colleagues—for the member for Lalor to say that we do not. We have children. The member for Corangamite has children. The member—my fine colleague here has children.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dobell.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dobell—thank you very much, Member for Dobell. Much more memorable than the previous member; how could I forget!

But, in all honesty, we are committed to child care and care deeply about children's development. Yes, we may differ on policy. Yes, we may have better ideas for execution and, as we have seen, we generally get the execution far better than those on the opposite side. We can go into history, because it is important to understand why we are in this situation at the moment. We know that Labor did not manage things well when they were in government. When I was out in the electorate for many months leading up to the last campaign I continually heard that they had been the worst government for many decades. They performed poorly across so many areas, and this is just another area where they did not get the execution right and let things get out of control. And it is not just us saying this; there were reports done by the National Audit Office, as we have heard before.

We also heard about NATSEM a far bit this week. I want to go back to the NATSEM comments in their report from June this year, where they mentioned childcare affordability in Australia in issue 35. This report highlighted Labor's failure to address the issue of child care during their six years in government:

… it is hard to escape the conclusion that they have also helped drive up prices and the cost to government. The higher prices go, the more financial assistance families will require and so the cycle continues.

Yes, they can go on about NATSEM modelling in the 90 second statements and the MPIs and everything else, but let us take on board what NATSEM said just a few months ago. Labor fail to do the work needed to fix the child care challenges and even refused, as we know, to undertake a Productivity Commission inquiry. Instead, they kept topping up child care assistance on the nation's credit card and helped drive up prices, as NATSEM has informed us.

We have had plenty of figures thrown around, as usual, by the Labor Party. But let us take a look at a few figures that they need to take stock of. The $1 billion of interest repayments per month. We know how many child care centres and schools that could buy. The take no responsibility. There is no accountability for the financial mess they left. Yes, if you want to go to more figures, we have got over $30 million a day in interest repayments. Let us talk about support. What sort of support can that by? This is where your debt and financial mismanagement hits the road. This is where it affects individual families, individual communities. This is something they just do not get.

Let me go onto the CPS in a broader sense. We know that it provides good assistance to families in establishing and maintaining services in areas where they might otherwise be unviable or otherwise unable to meet the requirements. We have heard some of the merits of the changes that we are implementing so that those in regional, remote or disadvantaged communities can be better off in this respect. I know this point was made by the minister, who visited my electorate and went to a child care centre in Grange and was warmly received. This is a valid point about how we are helping the market more broadly—how we are helping communities across the state, across our great country.

This sensible and fair measure brings support for family day care services into line with other types of child care such as long day care and outside school hours care. Just in closing, a few comments about early childhood education. I do agree with him member for Scullin on this point. We know children's development and the transition to school in those early childhood years are extremely important. There are significant reasons to support those early years, not just at home but also in a more formal sense with experienced educators, because there are significant benefits for when they get older in terms of development and their vulnerabilities. Naturally there is support required and costs money. Australian government funding is going to around $7 billion per year, covering two-thirds of the early childhood education and care costs. This is a significant investment and significant commitment to early childhood development, notwithstanding the comments of our friends opposite. In closing, let's be honest about this: we all care about child care, we are all committed to it. Let's just find the money to get on and do a good job.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very proud to stand in the chamber today and add my voice to those who are fighting against these savage cuts that the coalition is making to family day care. As part of $1 billion in cuts to child care in this country, $157 million is being slashed from family day care. These cuts are very serious. We had those on the other side of the chamber crowing about $550 a year difference in family budgets because of the carbon tax. Do you know the impact on the average family of these changes and child care cuts? Somewhere between $1,500 and $1,800 a year, serious dollars for those in my community who really have to watch every dollar.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is for one child.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is for one child, exactly. Family day care is an absolutely essential part of the overall child care puzzle Australia. About one in seven children who are in child care in Australia are in child care in a family day care centre. My family has been one of them. We had our little one in family day care in East Bentleigh, right in the heart of my electorate, earlier this year and we got these great benefits of a small group, an educator that we loved and the important thing—that flexibility.

What we hear on the other side of the House is so many different and confusing messages. I am not sure whether it is hypocrisy, as the member for Scullin has suggested, or whether it is just rank confusion, cluelessness—I am really not sure. But what we hear is that flexibility and affordability are the big things that we need in child care. As a working mum, I 100 per cent agree. So we have the government making all the right noises. They have even gone to the trouble of initiating a Productivity Commission inquiry that is meant to look into this exact issue of how to get more flexible and affordable child care. Yet at the very same time the government is cutting $1 billion from child care and especially focusing on the most affordable and the most flexible program that there is available for working families in Australia. For families that can afford nannies—and we know this is going to be very much the focus of what the government goes towards—they are just in a very different situation. They are going to have a much greater level of flexibility. But for most of the people that we represent in their electorates on this side of the House, they are not going to be able to afford an au pair or nanny no matter what type of government program is put together over there.

Family day care is a really important piece of the puzzle here and instead of talking about how expensive it is getting, could we just note that the demand for this family day care program has skyrocketed. I know that in the December quarter of 2013 demand for family day care rose 11 per cent in one quarter. What we read from this—not talking about budget blow-outs like these guys on the other side—is that Australian families want family day care. They are getting a lot out of the flexibility and affordability of the arrangements.

We talked a little bit about confusion and hypocrisy—these kinds of mixed messages that we are getting. I want to go to this issue about female workforce participation, because this is really right into the heart of the problem. Again we have got a very expensive Productivity Commission inquiry looking into the question of how we can help women in Australia who want to work more be able to do that. But we know that the biggest driver of women's decision to work is the child care costs. There are some very simple economics at work here. If there is nothing else you remember from what I say today, just let it be this. A woman in Australia who works full time on the minimum wage takes home after her child care costs $4.55 an hour. We know that there are women right around the country who are doing the simple maths and saying that, in the face of that, it is not worth it for them to work, especially if they have several children. I will just say to those on the other side of the House: what we know is that this has lifelong impacts for women. It is absolutely understandable and I respect the decision of women who want to stay at home, but for women who do want to work, if they spend three years at home with kids, we know that they going to earn about 40 per cent less through their lifetime as a consequence of their decision to do that. We on this side of the House want to give Australian women real choices, and that means affordable and flexible child care. That is exactly what family day care is providing. But what makes all of this so much more outrageous is this: we have this issue on the other side of the House being raised about $157 million—that is, how this program is just so expensive and we have to cut back on costs. Yet, at the very time, this government is introducing a gold-plated paid maternity leave scheme that will see the wealthiest women in Australia get paid $2,000 a week to have a child. One year of funding for that program would make up the funding shortfall for family day care for about 35 years. I would just say this: check your priorities, guys; women in Australia want flexible, affordable child care and that is exactly what family day care gives us.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to be speaking against this MPI motion today because I feel that in my role as not only a politician but also as a supporter, a mother and a previous user of childcare services, it is my responsibility to address the incorrect and irresponsible statements made by those members opposite. Both sides of this House acknowledge and deeply care about child care. This issue is not about cutting funding to family day care; it is about being a fiscally responsible and sustainable government while providing help and services to those people who make our community what it is.

I know the value of childcare providers, especially family day care services, because I have utilised these services. As a working mother of two boys, my sons were cared for from the age of six months until they went to school—not by a private nanny, but by quality childcare centres and family day care providers. Then they went on to attend before and after school care services. I was like most working women who rely on these services. I have nothing but respect and admiration for our childcare providers. I deeply admire the dedication, patience and enthusiasm of childcare staff. Their genuine love for their chosen profession meant that I knew my children were in safe hands. And this is all that parents want. When you are away working, you need to know that your child is safe and in a nurturing environment, and that is what these dedicated providers of child care provide to us working mothers and fathers.

I am a strong advocate and supporter of family day care in my electorate of Dobell and on the Central Coast, where we have more than 30,000 commuters leaving the region for work every day. I understand the need for reputable and reliable childcare services and family day care networks. It is the family day care network that makes up a huge part of these services. The intent of the Community Support Program funding is to provide operational support to organisations to assist them to establish or maintain services in areas where the requirements of the community are unable to be met. It was never designed to be used as an income stream to prop up unsustainable services. The changes meant that equity and fairness for all providers is experienced across Australia. A 2012 audit showed that more than 70 per cent of Community Support Program funding was going to family day care services, despite them caring for only 10 per cent of the children in approved care. Some may say this is unfair. What it is not is a level playing field for operators, especially since funding was developed for operators in regional and remote areas and the majority of family day care services are in metropolitan regions and not in regional areas such as Dobell, which has experienced, since 2011, a decline in the operators who provide this type of service.

Families can still apply for childcare benefit and the childcare rebate when using approved family day care providers. Users of approved family day care will also continue to receive childcare benefit assistance, and these parents actually receive one-third more than those using other care. This change in funding does not impact a service operator's ability to open or expand a family day care service, nor does it impact on the ability for a service to provide care for families. This funding is not received by the educators or the parents, but by the operators of the services. Funding is still available; however, it is capped to ensure fairness. It also aligns the family day care sector with other service types such as long day care and outside hours' school care, which are required to adhere to more stringent and rigid regulations.

As usual, it is up to the coalition to come in and fix the mess left behind by the previous Labor government, in turn impacting on my local community. I recently met with Child and Family Services Wyong Shire, who informed me of the impacts that the changes in this federal funding would mean to their business. This is an organisation that provides an important service to my electorate of Dobell. This business is well supported, diligently operated and proactive in ensuring its financial sustainability. To ensure that they continue to be sustainable following the changes to the Community Support Program, they have been proactive and they have been assertive in making hard choices and making changes to their organisation to ensure their continued success, and for that I commend them. In my role as their elected representative I aim to do as much as I can to support them with these new changes and be a voice for them when needed and provide practical solutions for the way forward.

This is about accountability, and once again it is left to this government to explain to the community that all of this has come about due to the incompetence of the former Labor government. In this instance, it ignored an Australian National Audit Office report in 2012 that highlighted this growing problem. This certainly was not a wise choice, nor was failing to review the eligibility guidelines to ensure that the areas that needed the funding most were receiving it. It is essential that we have a strong robust family day care sector if we are to successfully deliver a childcare service. Family day care is an essential service that I will continue to support, especially for my electorate of Dobell.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has now concluded.