Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendments circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 4, page 233 (after line 10), after item 235, insert:

235A After section 232

Insert:

232A Community Child Care Fund—guidelines for funding

(1) The Secretary must, no later than 1 July 2017, publish on the Department's website guidelines outlining the criteria that will be used in determining how funding will be allocated from the Community Child Care Fund.

(2) The Minister must table before each House of the Parliament, on the next sitting day of the House after the guidelines are published under subsection (1), a copy of the guidelines.

232B Community Child Care Fund—assessment of likely impact on rural and regional areas

(1) The Secretary must, no later than 1 July 2017:

(a) conduct an assessment of the impact that the replacement of the Budget Based Funded Program with the Community Child Care Fund will have on communities in rural and regional Australia (the rural and regional impact assessment); and

(b) publish a report of the rural and regional impact assessment on the Department's website.

(2) The rural and regional impact assessment must include, for each rural or regional area of each State and Territory of Australia:

(a) a statement of the number of child care places that will be available in the area under the Budget Based Funded Program on 1 July 2017, as compared with the number of child care places that will be available under the Community Child Care Fund on 1 July 2018; and

(b) an estimate of the number of child care services in the area that will cease to operate during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017 (if any); and

(c) an estimate of the number of child care services that will begin to operate in the area during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017 (if any); and

(d) an assessment of any other impacts that the replacement of the Budget Based Funded Program with the Community Child Care Fund will have on communities in the area.

(3) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine the way in which rural and regional areas in the States and Territories are to be identified for the purposes of carrying out the rural and regional impact assessment.

(4) In conducting the rural and regional impact assessment, the Secretary must consult with community groups representing communities in each rural or regional area of each State or Territory of Australia in relation to which the assessment is conducted.

(5) The Minister must table before each House of the Parliament, on the next sitting day of the House after a report of the rural and regional impact assessment is published under paragraph (1) (b), a copy of the report.

232C 2017 child care reforms—continuing assessment of impact

(1) The Secretary must assess the impact of the 2017 child care reforms on communities in rural and regional Australia on an ongoing basis, and publish those assessments, in accordance with this section.

(2) The assessments must relate to each financial year beginning on and after 1 July 2018.

(3) The assessments must include, for each rural or regional area of each State and Territory of Australia:

(a) a statement of the number of child care places that were available in the area during the relevant financial year; and

(b) an assessment of whether any more child care places were needed in the area during the relevant financial year and, if so, how many and where; and

(c) an estimate of the number of child care services in the area that ceased to operate during the relevant financial year (if any); and

(d) an estimate of the number of child care services that began operating in the area during the relevant financial year (if any); and

(e) an assessment of any other impacts that the 2017 child care reforms have had on communities in the area during the relevant financial year.

(4) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine the way in which rural and regional areas in the States and Territories are to be identified for the purposes of carrying out the assessment.

(5) In conducting the assessment, the Secretary must consult with community groups representing communities in each rural or regional area of each State or Territory of Australia in relation to which the assessment is conducted.

(6) The assessment for a financial year must be published on the Department's website within 2 months after the end of the year.

(7) The Minister must table a copy of the assessment for a financial year before each House of the Parliament, on the next sitting day of the House after the assessment is published on the Department's website.

(8) In this section:

2017 child care reforms means:

(a) the child care subsidy; and

(b) the additional child care subsidy; and

(c) the Community Child Care Fund; and

(d) the Inclusion Support Programme.

[greater transparency in 2017 child care reforms]

Minister, it is lovely to see you here. I welcome your comments, and thank you for your assurance. I move these amendments because I think it is really important that we include, in a public and transparent way, some of the agreements that have been reached between myself and the various government representatives. The amendments proposed are intended to hold the government to account—in particular, I am talking about the childcare amendments—and to ensure that we have ongoing support for rural and regional services.

To my colleagues opposite, I would really absolutely request that you have a look at these amendments and that if you are going to vote against them do so in full knowledge about what you would be rejecting. The amendments put a timeline on the publication of guidelines for the Community Child Care Fund to 1 July 2017 to ensure the sector has certainty ahead of transition. They require a regional impact assessment of the replacement of the Budget Based Funding Program—what that will have on communities in rural and regional Australia—by 1 July. They provide for a review of the childcare package as a whole with regard to the impact on communities in rural and regional Australia on an ongoing basis, with the first reporting period to be 1 July 2018 to 1 July 2019.

In the short term, these amendments will ensure service providers have certainty about the government's plans and will keep a spotlight on the implementation of the childcare package. The amendments will shine a light on the impacts of this package in rural and regional communities by requiring the department to complete a rural and regional impact assessment. This assessment should have occurred in the development of the package, but the education department, in consultation with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, colleagues, did not consider that the package warranted a regional analysis. What a failure!

In the longer term, although these amendments do not change the operation of the new childcare subsidy they do require that the government review the implementation of a childcare package on an ongoing basis. This review would occur after the first year of the operation of the package in 2019 and be in consultation with the community. Consultation means listening, acting, listening, acting and then doing what the community asks. It does not mean listening and then doing what the government wants in the first place. We are really good at consultation in rural and regional Victoria. We know what it means and we know when we do not get it. I have offered my services to work with the government on developing a consultation mechanism that works. I am delighted that—and I really acknowledge—the staff of the department have agreed to come to Indi and work closely with me and my communities on developing that process.

Over time, I really want to work with the government on not only this childcare package but all their legislation to make sure that the government understands that the people of rural and regional Australia often have differing needs to the people who live in the cities. Programs designed as one-size-fits-all often fail to meet our need. In closing, again I call to my colleagues on the other side: really look of these amendments because, in voting against them, your communities will be able to actually ask you, 'Did you understand what you were doing and did you really agree that these amendments were not up to scratch?' I am saying that a huge amount of work has been done with them. They have the best intentions for rural and regional Australia. I am looking forward to having the support of both the Labor Party and my colleagues who represent regional and rural seats in these amendments.

In closing, I thank the minister for his support. I am really looking forward to working with you to develop in the longer term childcare packages that, for me, particularly meet the needs of farming families, in particular farming women. The one thing we can do to increase productivity in Australian agriculture is to provide quality child care to our farming families, making it accessible, affordable and in places that meet their needs. Sadly, I do not think this legislation does it, but you absolutely have my commitment to work together with the government, as I do on every occasion that I possibly can, to design services that meet the needs of rural and regional Australia. I thank the minister and the opposition leader for their support with these amendments.

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

I rise to support the comments and the amendment that has been moved by the member for Indi to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. I thank her for her advocacy and for fighting so hard for not just regional families, but particularly for regional children, who would otherwise be left severely disadvantaged by the proposal that we have before the parliament.

We support the amendment and we support the measures to try and address what is a very deep flaw in this piece of legislation. We have made clear that there are particular problems with the child care reforms. Whilst we support the overwhelming bulk of the measures to try and streamline, simplify and improve the system, all of the experts have pointed out that there is a very big problem in these reforms when it comes to the mobile services that serve regional families. In fact, we know that Anne Bowler, the chair of the National Association of Mobile Services, said:

The funding reform proposal will no doubt ensure the closure of up to 90% of the current BBF mobile children's services across rural and remote communities in Australia.

That is not good enough. That is not acceptable. It is not good enough for the parliament to vote to support these proposals with our eyes wide open about what the consequences will be. If it was not for all of the advocacy through all of the Senate inquiries, we also saw media reports as recently as yesterday about what the impact of these reforms would be on regional families and regional children. Yesterday we saw a media report about the Bogan Bush mobile service in New South Wales pointing out that families using that service will face a 500 per cent fee increase if these reforms go through. That is a service that operates in the electorates of Parkes, Riverina and Page. But do you think we have heard any advocacy or any concerns? Has any member of those electorates, or indeed of the National Party, who purport to represent regional families, actually stood up for the families who will suffer as a result of this? No, they have not.

So we support the amendment proposed by the member for Indi, but we also say that the government needs to do more. It is not good enough for the government to say, 'We will do a review in the future and have a look at what services have suffered unintended consequences.' It is not good enough for the government to say, 'We will release guidelines on 1 July, but just trust us and pass this legislation,' knowing the damning effect that it will have on regional families as well as on Indigenous children and on children who will have their hours of access cut as a result of changes to the activity test.

When it comes to Indigenous children, who we know will be hit the hardest as a result of the attacks on the budget-based funded services in this legislation, this parliament needs to be really clear about the fact that the research is overwhelming: if you really want to close the gap and you do not want to just stand and make nice speeches in this parliament from time to time, one of the most effective ways to do it is to ensure that Indigenous children in those remote communities have access to quality early childhood education. This bill will actually shut that down. It will have a devastating impact on those families—something that the advocates in SNAICC had pointed out when they said:

What is going to happen to our services? In 2018 they will have to close their doors.

I note that the minister did address this in his closing comments, and I thank him for that. I note that in yesterday's matter of public importance debate not a single member of the government could defend what they are doing to Indigenous services, mobile regional services and lower-income Australian families under the changes to the activity test. But I say that the minister's comments are not good enough. It is not good enough to say, 'We will do a review and have a look at what services got shut down as a result of this.' It is not good enough to say, 'We will assess on a service-by-service basis how it is that they might fare.' They are all telling us exactly what will happen. Those services will close, and those children and families will miss out on those vital services.

I do not know how many members of the government have visited Indigenous budget-based funded services, but I will tell you that I have seen them. What I have seen is that in some remote communities they basically are a tin shed, but they are a tin shed where those children can go and be safe, well fed and their families can be supported to learn about healthy parenting and nutrition and escaping family violence, and to give those children the basic first steps to an early education. I support the amendment and I call on all government members, open your eyes, see what you are doing and fix the flaws in this legislation.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Indi's amendment to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. What we are seeing is a growing divide between regional Australia and metropolitan Australia. This is a very clear example of how government policy will make life in regional Australia more and more difficult. I particularly support the member for Indi's comments in relation to the mobile services. We need to support farming families. At times I do not think people in this House realise that when harvest is on mum is on the tractor, dad is on the tractor—who is going to look after the children? We are talking about a mobile service where sometimes there is no shop-front childcare centre for hours away. To put those services under threat is a great disservice to regional Australia, and it is a great disservice to all of Australia.

I would also like to touch on the budget-based funded sites. The member for Adelaide, the shadow minister, has talked about this. There are 245 budget-based sites, mainly in remote and regional Australia. They overwhelmingly support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young children. Seventy-three of these are in the Northern Territory. We know that if a review happens when they are gone, they are just gone. We know that they have got nowhere to transition to, and they are telling us that at least 50 per cent of their services will close. There is no way that they can be funded under what is generally planned for a metropolitan service. And if we in this parliament are serious about closing the gap—we have only just had a number of speeches on closing the gap in the last sitting week—if we are truly serious about addressing Indigenous disadvantage in this nation, then we will ensure that children have an opportunity to access early learning services and that they have an opportunity, with their parents, to access health education and to access a whole range of social services within these budget based services.

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask the minister to please reconsider the funding of this. This can be funded within the existing childcare envelope. Look, I commend the government for the fact that they have been able to stop more than $1 billion worth of rorting that they found within the childcare funding envelope. A very, very small proportion of that money would fund excellent budget based sites across remote Australia as well as mobile services across regional Australia and we would see more of a move towards actually closing the gap in this place. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, again, I commend the member for Indi and everybody who is speaking on this. This is absolutely too critical for us to just let this be waived through.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the excellent work done by an excellent minister and we also deeply appreciate that he has committed to dealing with the member for Indi; however, ministers change and government attitudes change, so we would feel much more comfortable if it was written in the legislation.

I would like, by way of argument, to tell one small story, which explains closing the gap and your failure to close the gap. I hope the staff pass onto the minister my kind remarks. I was with the Catholic priest in Cloncurry at his house, which is a stilt house. We went up the stairway. The holding bar on the left-hand side had fallen off, so it was a bit scary walking up the stairs; they were pretty rickety and old. He only had one chair, and he gave that to me. I said, 'No way', so we both sat on the floor together. We were in the middle of discussions and he said, 'I have to terminate discussions because I've got to look after these people over here.' There was a group of about 12 or 13 little children, ranging from the age of about five or six, I would say, up to about 12. I said, 'What do you mean you've got to look after them?' He said, 'I've got to feed them.' I said: 'You're the poorest person I've ever met! How could you possibly afford to feed them?' He said, 'If I don't feed them, they don't get fed.' By the way, this was at sundown; it was very late in the afternoon. He said, 'Their parents' idea of feeding them is when they get very, very hungry and they start crying, their parents give them some money to go and buy a bottle of Coca-Cola and a packet of chips', which naturally kids would do.

It is a small story, but that story could be repeated all over Australia a thousand times. While there is an emphasis on First Australians, it is very hard to differentiate on that basis in country areas because of intermarriage over the years. And we should not be taking that as a special basis as to why it should be looked at. So the member for Indi has moved a very sensible amendment. Whilst we greatly respect the minister and the excellent work that he is doing, we also say that we would feel much more comfortable if it was locked into legislation because he may not be the minister soon—who knows what tomorrow brings.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to value-add to some of the comments. I acknowledge the member for Kennedy and the member for Mayo for their support. I would like to take the opportunity, while I have got two of my most favourite ministers sitting at the table—

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

You're losing the crowd!

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. But I want to say to both the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and other really important people: rural and regional Australia matters. It is not just the election in Queensland and it is not just the election in Western Australia. You have seen the rearguard fight that we have put up for this particular legislation. I want to say to you—if you could take this to cabinet and take this back to your party rooms—that the government has got to do a much, much better job for those of us who live outside the regional capitals. You have got to show that you have a policy. The policy has to have principles of equality. The policy has to have principles of accessibility. The policy has to show that you are actually consulting and that, when you consult, you actually do what people say.

There are so many examples in rural and regional Australia, and in my electorate alone, of where the government—I have to say to both parties: you are missing the boat with us. You are going to lose more and more of us. Already the figures show that something like 29 per cent of Australians want to give their first vote to someone other than the major parties. So you are hearing a call from the heart. It is this sort of legislation that affects the mothers and the children and the Aboriginal people and the most needy of us in rural and regional Australia. I know that the government has heard my call, but I say to my colleagues across the path: you have got to do better. You have actually got to make sure that rural and regional Australia and the services that work for us are considered to work for us. This amendment is important, but it is the beginning of what I am going to say to almost every bit of legislation: have you consulted? Have you done what the people have said? The answer in this particular instance was grants. The minister is going to institute grants, which is a problem. But, anyway, if we have to have grants then we have to have grants.

But what I am beginning to see is grants taking the place of policy—ad hoc, let's put some money in, and then people can apply for grants. The problem with the grant process as a way of solving the problem is that you need really skilled people in your communities, you need paid workers and not only do you need to put the application in but you then have to go and do all the lobbying. The women and the children of rural and regional Australia do not have that capacity to jump through the hoops to get basic services by applying for a grant. It should be by way of service design that the service is there and it should not be only for five years. We actually should be designing systems that are sustainable, that are reliable, that can work for the long term and that have got enough flexibility in them. Working with local government and working with state governments, these services should become part of the fundamental infrastructure of how we build our communities, and this program does not do it. This program does all this add-on and transition stuff.

To the two ministers at the table, I welcome the opportunity to work with you but I really want to place on the record this is not a lone voice from Indi. If you talked to any of the members of the Queensland Rural Women's Network, to the New South Wales Rural Women's Network, to the CWA branches around Australia or to the women members of the farmer organisations, you would be hearing this loudly and clearly. If it is not right for us farmers, just think how much worse it is for our Aboriginal sisters because, if it does not work for us really linked into the National Party and linked into the Liberal Party, think how hard it is for those people who are not even linked into political parties and who do not have a voice.

In bringing my comments to a close and before we vote on this amendment, I am really hoping that you hear my call. This is not just idle; this is the tip of an iceberg of a government that is not paying attention to women and children and is not designing services that meet our needs. I place it there. I will watch the vote with great interest. I say to all my colleagues on the other side of the House: we women will organise around this. The networks we have got around rural and regional Australia and around Aboriginal Australia are strong, and you will be held to account for your vote.

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

I say to the ministers at the table: please do support this. It is not a sign of weakness to agree to an amendment moved by a private member. We have a problem in this place that governments, not just this government but any government, seem to think it is sign of weakness to accept an idea from someone else or to say, 'We are going to change things,' or to even say, 'We have got something wrong.' In fact, it is a sign of strength, a sign of competency, a sign of leadership when a government is to prepared to say 'Hey that is a good idea; we will embrace that.' I lament the fact that in our political system, in our political culture it is something that is seen to be avoided at all costs. Only kicking and screaming would the government agree to something moved by the crossbench or—heaven forbid—even the opposition.

There is a challenge here. Why do we not break the mold? Why do we not do things differently today? Why does the minister not say, 'Hey, that is a really good idea and we are going to support it today.' If for any reason the minister thinks he needs more time to perhaps discuss it with the member for Indi, to explore it more, how about you at least jump up and say, 'It that sounds like a really good idea. I, as minister, make a commitment to the member for Indi that we will look at it this very day, later this week, tomorrow or perhaps next sitting week. We will be prepared to move an amendment if we can find some way of inserting this very sensible amendment.' And it is very sensible.

Although I represent a capital city seat, Tasmania is made up of regional, rural and remote areas. In fact the bureaucrats in Canberra think of Hobart as a regional city. So this is as relevant to me and to my constituency as it is to the other crossbenchers. There is a challenge to the minister to break the mould, to show a bit of open-mindedness and to say, 'Okay that is a good idea.'

A warning has been sounded by the member for Indi. In Newspoll this week, 29 per cent of those polled showed a preference for One Nation or the Greens or others. Twenty-nine per cent is almost a third of the country. They are unprecedented figures, I think. It is not by accident. It is because an unprecedented number of people in the community are sick and tired of businesses as usual, of politics as usual. They want to see something different, and probably no more so than in regional, rural and remote Australia where people are feeling more and more ignored. They are feeling—and I think the feeling is warranted—that we in this place are increasingly removed from them, from their world and from their challenges, that we populate this wonderful building and that we move in wonderful circles.

Maybe it is because we now have generation of professional politicians. We all know the profile—the bright young thing goes to university; gets mixed up in student politics; might be a union organiser or a lawyer for a couple of years; becomes a staff member; spends all their time playing party games to get preselected, hopefully, for a safe seat; and has a wonderful job for life. And even when they lose their seat, like the former member for Bass, Andrew Nikolic and others, six months later they are in some cushy bureaucratic job because of the generosity of the government of the day.

It is no accident. There is nothing mysterious why 29 per cent of Australians are showing a preference for candidates and parties other than the Liberal-National coalition or for the Labor Party. It is because they do want to see change. I reckon here is a wonderful opportunity to say to the Australian community: 'Okay, the government are listening and are prepared to be more collegiate in this place. We are prepared to accept good ideas from other people.' And, Minister Porter, if you cannot agree to the amendment today, how about you at least jump up and make a commitment to the member for Indi that you will talk with her later today and that you will seriously contemplate moving an amendment later today or tomorrow or next sitting week to see this sensible idea implemented in this bill.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members for their contributions, particularly the member for Indi. I know that the member for Indi has discussed this issue and matter at length with the Minister for Education and Training—his knowledge about the matter certainly exceeds my own—and I know that he has indicated to you, Member for Indi, that we are not inclined to agree to the amendment and we will not be agreeing to it today. But no doubt the discussions between you and him will be ongoing. We understand the issue. It is not a lack of bravery, Member for Denison, that motivates us to not accept the amendment; rather, we think that what is in the legislation copes with the situation that you have identified. To the extent that you might disagree with that, I know that there are discussions that are ongoing, particularly in circumstances where part of the solution that we are proposing is ongoing reviews of the situation.

But I think it might be useful just to place on record some of the terms of the discussions that I understand have happened between you, Member for Indi, and the education minister, starting with a very brief description of the historical nature of the budget based funding, which is that it is in effect closed and capped. So one of the difficulties that have arisen, as I am sure you would agree, is that under the present system of BBF funding there is not any ability to respond to changes in community circumstances. If there is an increased number of children in a particular area, whether it is one that has been described by members opposite, or in an electorate, under the present funding system there is an inability to respond to that increased number of children.

The other difficulty, I understand, about the historical formulation of funding of this closed and capped BBF Program is that you do have very strong inequities arising. In some areas some childcare services would be receiving as little as $35.95 per child, whereas in other areas there would be very large amounts per child, and my information is that some of those get to as high as tens of thousands of dollars per child. So there is the historical legacy agreement of funding, there are inequities in that, and it is inflexible and does not allow for growth in some areas or for a decreased population in other areas.

What has been proposed in this bill is to allow the current budget based funded services to be properly funded for services they deliver by transitioning them into what is effectively their part in the same system that would apply to all childcare providers, but with some access to particular areas of funding that would sit on top of the basic funding model. It offers service providers flexibility and support in that, if there is an increase in the number of children or there are population pressures in the area in which a BBF service provide services, they would be able to increase their income by expanding their service delivery instead of having their service constrained by the fixed amount of allocated grant funding.

Member for Indi, you noted that you think one of the problems with the solution that is being proposed is that it is in effect grant funding. I think that is partly true, but of course the existing BBF system is in a sense grant funding which is quite fixed and quite inflexible. What is being proposed—and I am sure this has been part of the discussions between you and the education minister—is that the BBFs will be able to, first of all, access the general childcare subsidy. As you are aware, that is a payment per child, so services with more children than are currently recognised through their budget based funding are going to be able to benefit by having increases in their funding based on increases in the number of children that they are caring for. Again, families on an income of around $65,000 or less are going to receive a subsidy of what is effectively 85 per cent of the actual fees charged, up to the hourly fee cap.

So the first point is that the access to the general childcare subsidy means that the BBF model can grow along with population growth and the growth in the number of children that the services care for. The second point is that the additional childcare subsidy is available as a top-up payment in addition to the CCS, and that is of course a childcare top-up payment. Where some families in some areas—particularly the areas that you represent, Member for Indi, and indeed that are inside my own electorate—have a temporary financial hardship, where there is a transition-to-work issue arising or where there are grandparent carers, in addition to the flexibility of the first source of funding the childcare subsidy offers, there is the second source of funding to the families, which is the additional childcare subsidy.

Of course, where there is an issue around child wellbeing, where a child is at risk of abuse or neglect, the Community Child Care Fund, the CCCF, is going to recognise those unique circumstances in which the BBF would be operating and take into account the additional challenges and costs it faces compared with other types of services. Talking about the CCCF, that represents $110 million available each year. So, firstly, you have the childcare subsidy, which allows growth in funding per child (Extension of time granted) for the first time, which was not available before under what was basically block grant funding, although it was recurring. Secondly, you then have the additional childcare subsidy, which also offers an avenue for the BBFs to be funded. And then, thirdly, you have the CCCF, which represents $110 million.

We accept, and I think this was implied in your contribution, that the applications to the CCCF are on a competitive basis and you must be very careful to ensure that the BBFs are not outcompeted for that money. But I am sure, again, as has been discussed, there will be capacity inside the CCCF amount, the $110 million, for discretionary funding of services outside the main competitive funding. Those funding determinations would be informed by the work of the PwC consultants. I think that it is important to acknowledge that the PwC consultants are going to look at the particular needs of every single BBF in the country so that the minister and the department are well informed as to those particular needs and their particular circumstances, and how the first two rounds of funding are applying to them in making this decision with respect to the discretionary funding of services.

I heard and understood, and listened carefully to what the member for Adelaide had to say. It does seem, I think, improbable to suggest that you are going to have a failure in this sector when you are moving from one closed and capped source of funding to what are three sources of funding where at least one is not closed and capped, in the sense that it can provide for growth in the number of children being cared for in each of the BBFs that we are considering.

So, obviously, we join issue with you in understanding that there are very peculiar circumstances and particular circumstances with respect to the BBFs. We are not declining this amendment because its instincts are not right; we simply consider that these are matters which have been taken into account in the drafting. Now, there may be a different view on that. I am sure that these discussions between you, Member for Indi, and the education minister will continue, but it is not an amendment that we are inclined to agree to today.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take one particular issue from all that you were talking about, because I think it encapsulates the problem that we are facing. Surely, the BBFs have not been working and they need review. They are not particular, and that is the whole point: they have become particular and outside the mainstream. What we are trying to say is: design a service that stops rural and regional Australia being particular. That is what the BBFs have done and it definitely needs to change. There is no argument about it. What we are doing is actually perpetuating a system that is not working by keeping rural and regional Australia as a special case.

What we are asking of the really clever people in the government and the system is to design something where rural and regional Australia, farming women and Aboriginal families are not special and are not different. We are asking for the clever brains to design a system that says, 'Ah, we've got diversity in Australia. We can't have one size fits all. We're clever enough to manage this. And we are, and we have lots of examples where we do it, but just on this really particular issue of child care we have one size fits everybody but we have made rural and regional Australia and Aboriginal families special and different.'

That is the real critique that we have of this legislation. I am not going to speak again after this, but I would really like to acknowledge the comments of my colleague from Denison. What would it take for the government to say: 'Cathy, member for Indi, really good idea'? It would be such a good thing if you guys could do this because it would save the enormous embarrassment that is going to happen in a minute when we have the division. I am going to put on my webpage a map that shows where all these BBFs are; and the members who represent rural and regional seats are going to have to vote against something which is clearly in their own interests. Anyhow, enough—we have had the debate; I think it is time to bring on the vote.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The question now is that this bill be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.