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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the:

(a ) importance of quality early childhood education in preparing children for school, and the overwhelming evidence of the positive impact that access to kindergarten and preschool has on life outcomes; and

(b ) growing evidence of the enormous social and economic returns that are generated by investment in quality early childhood education;

(2) recognises the progress that has been made in increasing access to kindergarten and preschool since the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education was introduced in 2008, including:

(a ) an increase in the proportion of Australian children who attend 15 hours of quality early childhood education in the year before school from just 12 per cent in 2008, to over 56 per cent in 2012; and

(b ) evidence that Australian children who access quality early education for 15 hours a week go on to score significantly better in Year Three NAPLAN tests and achieve higher results in Year Four reading, maths and science;

(3) notes the uncertainty surrounding future funding for kindergarten and preschool and understands the impact this has on the sector, teachers, educators and parents balancing work and family; and

(4) calls on the Government to provide certainty of funding for kindergartens and preschools, with the continued goal of ensuring every child receives 15 hours of quality early education a week in the year before school.

I am very pleased to move the motion that has been circulated in my name in regard to the critical importance of early-childhood education and also the need for this Abbot government to step up to the plate and provide much needed certainty about funding for this nation's kindergartens and preschools as a matter of urgency.

It is unfortunate that I still need, in 2014, to outline the evidence around the critical importance of quality early-childhood education and preschool to our national parliament, but it seems that is the case. That is necessary, and we can see that as a result of many of the statements those opposite have made—and many of them misguided statements. In the face of overwhelming evidence, we are still having a debate about whether or not the government should be providing 15 hours of critical access to early-childhood education.

We know that the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education was negotiated as part of the 2008 COAG agreement. Already, we can see that the results of providing enhanced access to preschool for every Australian child are convincing. Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators states that a growing body of research recognises that early-childhood education and care brings a wide range of benefits:

including social and economic benefits; better child well-being and learning outcomes; more equitable outcomes and reduction of poverty; increased intergenerational social mobility; higher female labour market participation and gender equality; increased fertility rates; and better social and economic development for society at large.

I would say—right there—that paragraph is a pretty compelling case for this government to continue funding.

If that is not enough, we also see Australian research that has been based on information in the Longitudinal Study Of Australian Children, whichfound that those children who attended a preschool program performed better in their year 3 NAPLAN test. The performance in international reading and literacy standards, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, also showed a link between improved reading, maths and science scores and participation in pre-primary education.

It is obvious that if this parliament is going to take seriously its obligations to protect Australia's international competitiveness, to invest in our future economy and our future skills based in our future society, then it must start with a real commitment to early-childhood education. Sadly, that is not what we have seen from those opposite. What we have seen is the entire sector thrown into absolute turmoil and uncertainty for the majority of this year, not knowing whether their funding would be entirely cut by the federal government from the beginning of next year. This uncertainty continued post the budget, where the Abbott government failed to commit funding for preschool and kindergarten. Just recently, we saw a half-hearted announcement that there would be a continuation of some funding for one year only. So the uncertainty continues.

Even the funding that has been now pledged for next year has come with a number of conditions. This government seems to be flip-flopping about whether or not it wants to tell the states and territories what to do when it comes to education funding or whether it wants to get rid of what it calls the 'command and control'. In some areas they want to set the states free and let them do what they want. But now, in preschool and kindergarten, they want to dictate new terms and conditions around that funding without providing any additional funds. That means that right now, in a number of states, we know that next year governments will be trying to split the same amount of funding amongst more centres or more children. That equates to a real cut in preschool and kindergarten funding facing Australia from next year.

That is shameful for a number of reasons, because it flies in the face of evidence. It also means that right around Australia we have the parents' committees sitting around saying, 'What will we do if the Abbott government keeps this uncertainty going or, indeed, confirms that they intend to walk away from preschools and kindergartens?' They are left with one choice. The choice is they either cut the number of hours that Australian children have access to preschool and kindergarten services or they massively increase their fees. Perhaps those opposite might want to rise and say what they suggest one of these two options is, for parents grappling with this decision at kindergartens right across Australia.

We as a parliament should provide bipartisan support for quality early childhood education. We have heard enough nonsense from those opposite. We have heard enough excuses and we have heard enough claims that there is not the evidence to suggest that this is necessary—because, overwhelmingly, there is.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this motion seconded?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the question of funding that the member for Adelaide just raised. I think it is worth tackling this head-on. She talked about uncertainty in funding arrangements. While the previous government certainly talked the talk about funding arrangements regarding the national partnership agreement and 15 hours of preschool beyond 2014, they made absolutely no provision for it. In fact, it is this government, the Abbott government, that is providing certainty for the sector by providing an additional $406 million to enable preschool programs to continue under current arrangements for 2015.

I would like to address a couple of the issues here. We are talking about childhood education and the development of children in their early years from both a social and an academic perspective. Certainly, we on this side believe very much that it is important to have flexible, accessible and affordable early learning and child care. To this end, we commissioned the Productivity Commission review—the largest review of its kind since the 1990s. We also had Deloitte Access Economics help inform the ministerial education council on the performance of the national partnership agreement and, specifically, the mandatory provision of 15 hours of kindergarten per week. Any future government decisions on preschool policy will be informed by these works as well as the Federation white paper.

This careful, systematic and holistic approach to the early learning and childhood sector is at complete odds with the previous government's approach. By contrast, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government mismanaged this vital sector through ill-conceived, piecemeal and poorly implemented policies. They allowed themselves to be clouded by the shared desire to provide the best for our children, resulting, though, in policy by thought bubble and, I suspect, in the case of the one-size-fits-all mandatory 15 hours of kindergarten per week, a solution in need of a problem. It is because early childhood learning and quality child care is so important that the government must consider the taxpayer's investment in, and the regulation of, the sector very carefully to ensure that we are actually achieving defined and positive aims. Good intentions, while necessary, are just the beginning and should never be confused with good outcomes.

Labor's legacy in the early childhood and child care sector—about which we heard nothing from the previous speaker—is very poor. Childcare fees increased 53 per cent under six years of Labor. That is $73 extra a week for a family using the average hours of child care a week, or 27.7 hours of long day care. Labor's national quality framework regulatory changes cost families not an extra 57c a week but, for a long day care centre with 15 staff and 75 places, $140,000 annually. That is $2,000 per child or a massive $38 per week per family.

This experience is well known to me at a local level, as one of my local Higgins kindergartens specifically budgeted between $10,000 and $15,000 for the additional cost of implementing the national quality framework in 2013 alone. This is a huge sum for a not-for-profit community-run organisation. With regard to the mandatory increase from 12 to 15 hours of kindergarten per week as part of the national partnership agreement, the transition for many kindergarten providers was extremely costly and had a significant impact on program times, staffing arrangements, voluntary committee workloads, fees and accessibility. Again, one of my local kindergartens, in order to achieve an increase for their existing cohort of four-year-olds to 15 hours per week, had to actually reduce their total number of places for three-year-olds. This meant fewer children attending the kindergarten and therefore higher fees. However, it also meant fewer families available to support kinder through voluntary committees and fundraising activities, which are also critically vital for their viability.

The member for Adelaide's motion says that the proportion of children attending 15 hours of kindergarten per week has increased from 12 per cent in 2008 to 56 per cent in 2012. This is hardly surprising, given that the government mandated the increase. However, this figure alone is not proof of the merit of the change, nor does it necessarily justify the return on taxpayers' increased investment. In fact, it is surprising that the figure is not higher, and that perhaps reflects how difficult and how costly the transition has been. We on this side take a common-sense approach which will enable the government to consider the Productivity Commission and Deloitte Access reviews and the federation white paper with a view to maximising the billion dollar investment in the sector to ensure it is actually for the benefit of Australian families and their children, both in the form of services provided and for the taxpayer, who, whether through their taxes or through the previous government's irresponsible debt, will ultimately foot the bill.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Early childhood education and care is so important for children's development and for so many other benefits that our society derives from it. The motion that my colleague the member for Adelaide has moved today recognises that.

Some of those wonderful community benefits that are obtained from early childhood education and care are obvious when you visit community kindergartens, preschools and childcare centres that all provide kindy programs. For example, in the last few months I have visited so many kindies in my local area, such as the Camp Hill kindy, the Harty Street kindy, the Scott Street kindy, Bulimba kindy's AGM, Holland Park kindy, Malcolm Street kindy and Cannon Hill kindy to see some of the amazing work that the teachers and parent volunteers are doing there for early childhood education and care.

Of course, the benefits are not just borne out on the faces of the kids, the parents and the teachers; international research demonstrates some of the benefits of early childhood education and care. As my colleague the member for Adelaide said, the OECD's Education at a glance 2014:OECD indicators states:

A growing body of research recognises that ECEC—

that is, early childhood education and care—

brings a wide range of benefits, including social and economic benefits; better child well-being and learning outcomes; more equitable outcomes and reduction of poverty; increased intergenerational social mobility; higher female labour market participation and gender equality; increased fertility rates; and better social and economic development for society at large.

The decision by all jurisdictions to agree on the 15 hours of early childhood education in the year before school was made in reliance on a study called 'Effective Provision of Preschool Education,' which found that attending preschool for 15 hours a week had significant positive gains in cognitive development. An Oxford University study has been tracking the progress of 3,000 English children since 1997, which found that up to two years of quality preschool was pushing up school test scores for 16-year-olds by 51 points.

There is so much evidence in support of the need for quality early childhood education and care. That is why I am so proud that Labor has worked so hard over many years to promote preschool education. In fact, if you read Gough Whitlam's 1969 election speech, one of the commitments that was made in that speech was to preschool education being available for all children, and of course he repeated that in 1972. More recently, Labor in 2008 worked very hard to bring about universal access funding for preschool and kindergarten. Previously, just 12 per cent of Australian children received those 15 hours or more of quality education in the year before school. In 2012 that figure had risen to over 56 per cent, so there has been a sharp increase in participation in early childhood education and care in the year before school for Australian children. It is highly valued by parents. Funding for this universal access to education is so highly valued by parents that they have been making really clear, through some of the work that has been done through the parents group The Parenthood, just how important this funding, and early childhood education and care, is for them. Of course, The Parenthood worked very hard to try to bring to this government's attention the importance of early childhood education.

As you know, quite regrettably, the Abbott government's first budget did not commit to funding for early access into 2015. Groups like The Parenthood campaigned very strongly on that issue and I know that, for example, The Parenthood arranged for thousands of emails to be sent to the government. There was a letter-writing campaign, a postcards campaign and personal letters sent to ministers and consequently, unfortunately belatedly, on 5 September, the assistant minister announced that there was now agreement to extend universal access funding into 2015. That is fine insofar as it goes, but it is only a 12-month extension. Parents and educators want certainty about what is going to happen to the 15 hours of universal access funding. That is certainly the case in my local area, and it seems to be the case nationally as well. We know that the Productivity Commission's draft report contained a recommendation to the government to continue to provide that funding for those 15 hours a week. What we need to see from this government is a commitment for ongoing support for the universal access funding, and that is why I am pleased to rise to support this motion today.

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

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion today, because recently I met with a number of childcare operators: the Camden Park Child Care Centre, the Camden Community Centre and the Forbes Children's Centre. I also met with the local kindergarten in West Beach, where my children went—and Rosa and the team do a great job there. These operators are mainly women who are all very passionate about education for children, as we all are. It was great to discuss with them the work, what they do with their local kindergarten and the high-quality guidance they give the children and the benefit to their families.

I also had the Assistant Minister for Education, Sussan Ley, in my electorate with the industry roundtable, again listening to what people had to say about the importance of education. We are committed to education, especially early childhood learning. We have heard of the $406 million that we have committed for 15 hours of preschool per week until 2015. We have also heard how Labor did not allocate one cent to extend the preschool national partnerships beyond December this year. So there is a distinct difference in the two approaches. Overall we are investing close to $30 billion in childcare fee assistance over the next four years to ensure that delivers maximum value for Australian families and taxpayers.

Just going back a step as to why early childhood learning is important, we have heard a lot of reports and evidence and it is fairly conclusive. Recently there was a study by the University of London and the University of Oxford on influences of student's development from ages 11 to 14 and how high-quality preschool shows beneficial outcomes 10 years after their experiences in early years—in particular, better results in maths, science and English and better social behaviour at age 14. We have also heard, in such studies, of students who succeeded against the odds who were helped by parents, friends and, importantly, their communities—and through this they had installed higher aspirations. Again this importance of the parents and the home learning environment is something that should not be forgotten.

Just back to some other studies that I want to touch on too in terms of language development in the early childhood years: there was a study in Northern Ireland, and also in England, where by the time that the children were 11 those that had a very strong early childhood development program gained better results in English and maths at those ages. Children who attended high quality preschools were 2.4 times more likely in English and 3.4 times more likely in maths to attain the grade at age 11 than those without preschool. The body of evidence extends to the World Bank, where they have also looked at evaluating programs and the benefits for children, families and communities in terms of higher levels of social and emotional functioning.

Why is this important for today's motion? As a parent with young children, who have just finished their early childhood years, I was not fully aware of the importance of the early childhood years in terms of their development in literacy and maths, and it made me think about this in a bit more detail. I took some interest in going to Fraser Mustard, who has sadly passed away but who was a world expert in this field. I could not recall the South Australian state Labor government actually promoting this to parents with young children like me. And I thought that was a deficiency in what they were wheeling out in that respect. We needed to know more as parents about the benefits and how we could influence our children and help educate our children with that home environment being so important, as well as selecting good early childhood learning.

I would like that to be put on the record as a change that state governments should undertake to get that message out to parents in a far better way than they have in the past. As we heard my good colleague the member for Higgins talk about, the Productivity Commission and following it is a line to our commitment to make childcare more affordable, flexible and accessible. We have heard a number of great submissions and comments from families and childcare centres around Australia to make a better system going forward as part of our overall strategy.

Just going back to the issue of early learning languages in terms of childhood development: we have committed $10 million to test the effectiveness of providing preschool children with exposure to a language other than English through online learning programs. When we have signed major free trade agreements with massive trading partners of Australia, it is so important that we understand their culture and their language. This is another example of our commitment not just to early childhood learning but to how it follows through to a better society.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion, by the shadow minister and member for Adelaide, about the importance of quality early childhood education. We value that so much that in government Labor committed to making sure there was more funding, because we understand the importance of quality early childhood education. The fact is that there is a large amount of evidence that this high-quality early childhood education has enormous benefits. I certainly have seen it firsthand in my electorate. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the outstanding work of the hardworking childcare workers in my area and also acknowledge the childcare centres as well. But those workers do a fantastic job. Yet, despite all the benefits that are provided by early childhood education, this government, the Abbott Liberal-National government, continues to refuse to commit to supporting this very crucial year of early education. Instead, since coming to office, it has already announced $1 billion of funding cuts to early childhood education.

The fact is that investing in early childhood education has massive developmental benefits, which have a positive effect on a child's abilities and, of course, also their future life opportunities. It was the Labor government that first negotiated the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education to provide universal access to preschool and kindergarten, making sure that every single child in Australia could access this very crucial part of their education.

In 2008, before Labor introduced this universal access funding for preschool and kindergarten, just 12 per cent of Australian children received at least 15 hours of quality education in the year before school. In 2012, that figure had risen to over 56 per cent. Research shows that children who attend preschool go on to score significantly better in year 3 NAPLAN tests and in year 4 reading, maths and science, yet this government continues to provide uncertainty through its lack of an ongoing funding commitment. This is even with the evidence staring it in the face: international and Australian research has shown that at least 15 hours of preschool education per week in the year before school has such lasting positive impacts on the educational and social outcomes for children throughout the rest of their education and throughout the rest of their life.

If we look at what federal Labor did, we provided $970 million over five years for universal access and topped that up with an additional $660 million to make sure that states and territories were reaching the target of 15 hours per week, especially reaching out to disadvantaged children so that they got the early education that they needed. We do know that it is so incredibly important when it comes to early childhood education, because many preschoolers begin their first year of formal schooling, usually kindergarten, with varying levels of literacy skills. This variability is largely affected by their home environments but also by the availability of quality early childhood education programs. We know that a child's preschool entry literacy skills are a significant predictor of their first grade reading scores and that poor literacy skills of the start of preschool are more likely to lead to poor reading skills in grade 1. All of this highlights the need for targeted and very specific programs focusing on early childhood education. In fact, the CEO of the Benevolent Society, Joanne Toohey, said:

One in five children starting school—

or 22 per cent—

is 'vulnerable' in one or more areas of development. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children the rate is double this, at 43 per cent. We know that early childhood education and care enhances child development and makes a significant difference to children's school readiness and performance in later life, particularly for disadvantaged children, if the services are of a high quality.

So we know that investment in early childhood education helps all children achieve their full potential.

Evidence also suggests that there is an economic value in investing in the national quality framework. In their report Putting a value on early childhood education and care in Australia, PricewaterhouseCoopers outlined some of the long-term benefits from increasing childhood participation in quality early care and education. The modelling used within the report shows that children receiving quality early childhood education and care—defined in the report as 'education and care which either meets or exceeds national quality standards'—would generate up to $10.3 billion.

It seems, though, that the future of our children and their preschool education is just being ignored by the Abbott Liberal-National government and is subject to more of their cruel and unjust cuts. The government seems determined to undermine the hugely successful national partnership agreement, which, as I said, was introduced by Labor in 2008. We know that, without funding certainty, contact hours could be reduced, services closed or staff laid off, and that would make the pressure on other childcare centres very great as well.

I, like others who are speaking in support of this motion, call on the government to provide certainty of funding for kindergartens and preschools, with the continued goal of ensuring that every child receives 15 hours of quality early education a week in the year before school. We see the facts and we know what a difference it makes—and we know how important it is to a child's education and also to their future livelihood.

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

I rise today to speak on this private member's motion, at least half of which is based on false assumptions and scaremongering from an opposition who have not quite come to terms with the total chaos that was their previous government.

Not one person in this House, or indeed in the other place, denies the importance of early childhood education. There is no doubt that access to, and participation in, quality early childhood programs significantly improves education outcomes for students in future years, as this motion states. Queensland schools are leading the way, not only with the introduction some years ago of a prep year prior to the traditional start of year 1 but also now with the introduction by many schools of pre-prep to ensure that children are up to a certain standard before commencing prep. This is only for two hours a week but provides a vital stepping stone to help children adjust to the environment of school, as opposed to child care and kindergarten. Queensland children are being well prepared for their exciting future. By creating the habit of learning early, Queensland children are setting themselves up for the future as lifelong learners. This does not happen by accident. It happens because of quality early childhood education.

It is about here that I begin to have trouble with the rest of this motion. It goes from nonfiction to fiction. In fact, it is a rather wonderfully created work of prose. The trouble is that it has as much in common with reality as The Magic Pudding. I understand that those opposite find themselves in a bit of a bind over education in general. They keep trotting out the fabrication that this government has cut, or will be cutting, $30 billion from education, in stark contrast to the actuality—the coalition government being the highest-spending Australian government on education in history. Even ABC Fact Check has investigated the opposition claims and found them to be incorrect. Yes, there was a requirement for the review of the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education, as was put in place by the then Labor-Greens alliance. If any uncertainty has been created by this review, then the blame for that lies flat at the feet of those who drafted the legislation. As we have seen far too many times in this parliamentary year, the Abbott government has had to clean up the mess left by the previous Labor-Greens unholy union. Repeal bill after repeal bill and amendment bill after amendment bill have been introduced to fix bad legislation.

Here we have just another example of the lack of forethought from those opposite. The funding agreement expires on 31 December 2014, but Labor and the Greens only allowed a six-month window—less, when you realise that parliament rises on 4 December—in which to conduct a review of a new program. Then, of course, review findings need to be discussed and signed off by the states and territories. This takes time, as it should—time which the framers of the bill thought they could just jump into their TARDIS and create. The coalition government offered to expedite the review, which required the states and territories to provide information in a timely fashion. Unfortunately this did not happen, so the process was slowed again. Thankfully for the children of Australia, there is a competent economic manager in charge of the budget now, so there was a contingency reserve to cover funding should the review take longer than expected. Indeed, they usually do.

It also seems odd to me that the childcare rebate and the childcare benefit, both introduced as part of the family tax benefit after the introduction of the GST, have been heavily derided by those opposite. The family tax benefit has been called 'nothing but middle-class welfare' by Labor since it was introduced. This is from the same party that took 86,000 single mothers off the single parenting payment and put them on Newstart allowance, making them and their families $100 a week worse off, while increasing their childcare fees by 53 per cent. As a consequence, while I agree with certain parts of this motion, I find myself unable to support the gross misrepresentations presented before the House by the member for Adelaide. She knows full well that the delay in entering into a formal agreement with the states and territories is the doing of her party. Therefore, I reject this motion.

Debate adjourned.