Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will not be asking any questions about the carbon tax. I am sure we will have an exhaustive committee stage for that bill when it gets here. I want just to state on the record my position on this bill. In good conscience I cannot support it. I think that it is worth reflecting that the 2010-11 budget provides $273.7 million for the introduction of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, the NQF, and the commentary is that this framework will involve, amongst other matters, a progressive phase-in of improved carer-child ratios and higher qualification requirements for carers. These are unambiguously good things, and I think that the government needs to be congratulated for going down that path; that is important. But, in terms of good public policy, the measure of capping the rebate is inconsistent with the government's paid parental leave legislation, which I strongly supported, because it will dis­courage some families, some women, from participating in the workforce. We know that the rates of workforce participation by women in this country are extremely low by OECD standards, and are at their lowest amongst women aged between 25 and 44—the prime child-bearing years. The Henry tax review was asked by the government to make coherent recommendations to ensure appropriate incentives for, amongst other things, increased workforce participation. I think any measure that makes child care more expensive, less affordable, will go against a very fundamental tenet of what the government is seeking to achieve.

It is ironic that on the one hand the government wants to support parents through paid parental leave—an unambiguously good measure—but on the other hand this measure will penalise parents by making child care less affordable when they want to return to work. What modelling has been done by the government to determine how many people will either drop out entirely or reduce their use of child care, which will have employ­ment participation implications, as a result of this measure? What assumptions were made by the modelling? What was the nature of the modelling? Does the government still stand by the modelling that was done? If the modelling was done six or nine months ago, it is fair to say that the economy is in different shape now compared to back then. There are issues involved around what has happened in global markets. It may have some collateral impact on confidence here in Australia and on people being concerned about how they will make ends meet.

I agree with Senator Boswell that the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations is very much on top of her brief in this and is very capable in this area—although I do not think it is fair to be asking her questions on the carbon tax in this context. Parliamentary Secretary, what estimates have been made? What modelling has taken place to determine either the expected level of dropouts from child care or the number who will cut back on child care? Finally, is there a concern that people will seek alternative arrangements to reduce their employment participation as a result of these measures? I think they are relevant questions in the context of this bill.