Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to contribute to this debate on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I thank Senator Moore for taking us through the implications of the changes in the bill as they relate to Australia's extraordinary childcare services. I was quite blown away by some of the figures when I heard Senator Moore articulate that there are 627,980 Australian families with 869,770 children in approved child care and that we have across Australia 13,899 childcare services. It reminded me of how important it is that we have a well-regulated system for many reasons, not just because of the issues, which the measures in this bill address, of recouping payments and managing the childcare system. It is a truism, of course, that children are our future. But every one of us aspires, as parents and grandparents, to ensure that the children in our lives have access to stimulating child care and the early learning programs that are such a critical part of our whole education system. So we need to make sure we understand the quantum of the childcare sector in Australia because it is now so huge and so many children and families are dependent upon it, and that does make quite a difference.

Senator Moore's comments focused very clearly on the purpose, the direction and the strategic approach of the government in the childcare changes, so in my contribution today I will go to some of the other measures in the bill which I think are equally important. The first of these measures that we need to talk about, other than the changes to the childcare system more broadly, is the change that lowers the maximum child age of eligibility for family tax benefit A from 24 to 21 from 1 July 2012. This is an important issue. I do not think we ever get rid of dependent children, whether they are 25 or 35—and I can attest to that—but I do think some signal needs to be sent to our children that we expect them to start to be a little bit more independent once they get to 21. That is not the purpose of this legislative change; it is actually about some policy coherence by bringing into line the reduction in the youth allowance age of independence from 1 July 2012. Policy consistency and coherence is an important part of good governance, so we line these things up and make sure there are no misunderstandings or misapprehensions about what is happening. What it will do is ensure that the family system payment continues to support families with dependent children who are studying or training, at the same time recognising that young people aged 22 and over are considered independent.

The second measure in the bill, another very important measure, builds on the reforms announced in the 2009-10 budget that better target the family payment system to focus on low- and middle-income families. In the 2009-10 budget indexation on the upper limits for family tax benefit parts A and B and the baby bonus were paused, and this bill will extend the indexation pauses on higher income limits for some family assistance payments for a further two years. In addition, the indexation of the Paid Parental Leave scheme income limit will not commence until 1 July 2014.

The third measure in the bill goes to the indexation of family tax benefit end-of-year supplements, which will also be paused for three years from 1 July. This will keep the end-of-year supplements at their current level for the next three entitlement years. The current supplement amounts are $726.35 per child for family tax benefit part A and $354.05 per family for family tax benefit part B.

The bill also introduces a very important measure from the 2010-11 budget which reforms assessments for disability support pensions. This has been brought forward, as part of the 2011-12 budget, to start on 3 September 2011 rather than on 1 January 2012. It is a new assessment procedure for disability support pensions that will help people with disabilities return to the workforce wherever possible by focusing on their ability rather than their disability. If you have had contact with anyone in the disability sector, you will know the big thing that those people who live with a disability, their families and their carers really want in their lives is for the rest of us who are able-bodied to look beyond their disability and really see their potential. This is an important part of our social inclusion agenda and we will really focus our employment services to support people who have a disability or who incur a disability to get back into the workforce. It is a new assessment procedure that will require most people to have their future work capacity tested by participating in training or work related activities in order to qualify for the disability support pension.

We know that one of the critical issues is that the disability support pension is a poverty trap. We are well aware of the temptation—particularly, as Senator Nash would know, in a rural community where there are not great employment oppor­tunities—to park someone on a disability support pension and, by doing so, actually lock them into a poverty trap that is very difficult for them to get out of. So the notion that employment services, programs and commitments of this government in this budget are going to be targeted at improving employment and workability of people living with disability is a very important part of our agenda. The requirement does not, of course, apply to people with severe impairment. People with a severe disability or illness who are clearly unable to work will be fast-tracked so that they can receive financial support more quickly and will not have to continue to participate in a program of support.

The next part of the bill, which is something that I have been very interested in and have followed very closely since its inception, is an amendment that enables the extension of the income management elements of the Cape York welfare reform trial. The trial is a partnership between the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge with the Australian government, the Queensland government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. This trial has had a transformational impact on many of the communities of the cape. Where we saw appalling levels of literacy and numeracy in the NAPLAN results a few years ago, we are now seeing the amazing transformation of children's learning and performance. It is to do with the way in which these communities have embraced this idea of managing their own welfare payments, have taken the responsibility within their communities of ensuring that their children are well fed and are attending school, and have ensured that the income management system there is owned and operated by the communities. It is a very directed and specific project which, I think, leads the way in reform for breaking the cycle of disadvantage that is part of Indigenous circumstances in Australia.

The Queensland government is now in the process of leading a consultation with the Cape York communities in relation to a proposed extension of the trial for another year to 1 January 2013. In the 2011-12 budget the Australian government is pro­viding $16.1 million for this extension. Recently, there was a heartfelt and very moving program on national television about the impact of this measure in the Cape York communities. It challenges families in a way that perhaps has not happened before, but it is leading to striking improvements in family life, in the care and responsibility of child­ren, in reducing alcohol consumption, in reducing domestic violence and, of course, in improving attendance at schools.

They are the significant measures of this bill. While the consultations are taking place under the auspices of the Queensland government, our government is moving to put in place the amendments required to Commonwealth legislation to enable the extensions of that trial. It is very important to proceed with those amendments so that any extension of the trial is not delayed and so that those four Cape York communities are not adversely affected. Every time I go to the Cape and go to these communities I am amazed by the changes that are happening there, by the great sense of ownership and by the positive spirit that is part of being involved in such a powerful social change program. Changes to the Queensland government legislation are also going to be required to allow the trial to be extended, so these measures are all part of the enabling legislation required.

There is also a minor non-budgetary measure here that clarifies that the Public Works Committee Act 1969 does not apply to Aboriginal land trusts established in the Northern Territory under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, because land trusts were never intended to be Commonwealth authorities to which the Public Works Committee Act applies, and this amendment puts that position beyond doubt.

The legislation that is before us today really goes to some fundamental issues about good governance. The first one is around transparency. As Senator Moore so clearly and coherently argued, the issue that really triggered and focused the national mind was the collapse of ABC Learning in 2008, and the implications of that could have been catastrophic for Australian communities. One hundred thousand families could have been in the position of waking up on the Monday morning and not being able to have child care. Those 100,000 families translated into many, many thousands of small bus­inesses who would have been in a desperate situation. Because of the very competitive nature of ABC Learning at that time, the ABC Learning Centres collapse meant that many, many families and communities would have been desperately affected—and I know that Senator Nash is aware of the circumstances of some of the small community childcare centres not far from here who were really caught in the dilemma.

ABC came into their communities, really took over the community-based childcare centres and 'put them out of business', for want of a better term. Then they collapsed themselves, leaving the community with no child care. So the notion that we have improved transparency, improved gover­nance and improved the regulatory environ­ment is a big part of the government's commitment to the not-for-profit sector. We are about reducing regulation, simplifying the regulatory burdens and improving the red tape circumstances that come into play so that, at the same time that we have the national quality standards for child care, we need to ensure that we are not imposing a massive regulatory burden on those childcare centres, many of which are not-for-profit organisations.

The COAG agenda is about simplifying the regulatory framework. It is about improving the quality standards for children's services. It is about improving the ratios. It is about actually skilling up the childcare workforce so that the workforce develop­ment, which is part of the government's broader strategy here for improving childcare services, gets the focus on the finding that it deserves.

But the changes in this bill are far more fundamental for families. We have a mechanism that recognises the cost-of-living pressures. It allows the changes to our childcare system and to the fortnightly payments of the childcare rebates as part and parcel of recognising, first of all, cost-of-living pressures for families. It improves the reconciliation process for the family tax benefits A and B, which I know has been quite confusing for many families, to ensure predictability for our childcare centres so that there are no overpayments and then repayments needing to be made and claimed back, but at the same time it simplifies the system and ensures that the government has a viable mechanism for getting over­payments returned. These are all important in terms of improving the flexibility, the responsiveness and the management of a childcare system which, as I say, affects so many families—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of families and children—across Australia.

Senator Moore touched on the issue that we have in terms of the COAG agenda, which I think is so fundamentally important, and that is around the early intervention and assessment of children with early learning needs. The whole investment that we have in supporting children with autism and being able to diagnose autism and disabilities early means that children can participate in supportive services in the early years that they have never, ever had before. We are able to target our childcare funding, a massive investment in funding that stimu­lates children, improves their capacity, their vocabulary and their learning at a very early age and sets the foundation for their learning right through their school years. The fact that we can actually ensure that we support children with disabilities into child care is critically important for ensuring their future learning as well, and I am really proud to be part of a government that is recognising and doing that.

When I think about it—when I think about the consumer protections that are in this bill and the protections to government and the issues of transparency that are all part and parcel of these amendments—I know that what we are doing is strengthening the services in our communities for families. The MyChild website provides great trans­parency and great consumer advocacy, it gives parents choice and helps them understand and really demand the best quality services, and it is part of the COAG agenda. It is critically important. We think that parents deserve choice. They should not have to be limited in their childcare services to the lowest common denominator. They deserve better and our children deserve better, and the measures that are contained in this bill will ensure that our children have the best childcare system that we can afford.