Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to refer interested senators to the Greens amendment on sheet 8109. This is in relation to lifting the number of hours in the safety net from 12 to 15. We have heard consistently from the sector, the childcare providers as well as education experts, that we should not be reducing the number of hours available for vulnerable and low-income families, and children in particular.

This safety net can only operate as a safety net if it indeed gives children the protection that ensures they are able to succeed and benefit from the care and educational experience and opportunities they are given. This amendment goes to put into practice the idea that two days of child care and early childhood education would be available to vulnerable and low-income families. These are families who do not meet the activity test for a variety of reasons. This might include single parent families or families where one parent is at home and not able to work or is transitioning through different work arrangements.

I heard the minister in his speech just now trying to argue that 12 hours of care is sufficient, but it is just not. Currently, these families have access to 24 hours of care a week. The current bill, unless this amendment is accepted, would halve that access for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged families we have. I would like to keep it at 24 hours per week, but I am being realistic here tonight that there has been a lot of consultation and compromise from people on many fronts to accept that 15 hours would be the bare minimum. The rationale for 15 hours is that it is neatly split between two days, at 7½ hours per day, which ensures children can get the maximum benefit from that care.

We also know that from a provider's perspective—that is, each individual childcare centre—that it is more realistic for them to be able to operate a system where they can provide 7½ hours of care each day, or 15 hours of care split evenly over two days. It makes their whole system more viable. Centres have told us this, and we have all of the evidence provided through the various Senate inquiries. There is very little belief that centres, particularly small-business operators and those in rural and regional areas or outer suburbs, will be able to be viable and provide services if they can only provide six-hour blocks. It is just not viable or realistic for those centres to operate under those circumstances.

To be absolutely frank and honest with those in this place, the government has cut in half the current safety net for all children. For vulnerable kids and kids from low-income families and families where only mum or dad is working for whatever reason, it is just unthinkable that we would punish those children by forcing them to get access to only one day of care per week. It flies in the face of everything we have seen from experts and evidence about how we get the best benefit out of funding early education and care.

This is a big package. There is a lot of money in this package, but it is not going to be able to do its real, good work or have a significant benefit for children if we cut off our nose to spite our face and force kids into one full day 12-hour session or bits and pieces over a week. That is not how you deliver a comprehensive, effective education and care service.

In my speech on the second reading I also spoke about children who are on the margins in terms of vulnerability. For many of these kids sometimes the childcare centre is the safest place to be. And we are about to say to those children, 'It might be the safest place you can be, but you're only going to get half the time there now.' I just think that is unacceptable. How can we say to these kids, who are amongst the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community, that they deserve less because others who happen to have both their parents working are going to get more. These kids deserve a decent safety net, a proper safety net. And lifting the hours from 12 to 15 seems like a small amount, but it will make a significant difference to ensuring that these children do not fall between the cracks.

I plead with the government and I plead with my fellow crossbenchers: three extra hours a week will make a huge difference to the lives of these children. This is an opportunity to fix it tonight and an opportunity not to throw these children and their families under the bus. This is an opportunity to work with our small, independent mum and dad operators of childcare centres out there and ensure that they can continue to care and deliver services to vulnerable kids and low-income families. I plead with the committee: this amendment is a huge compromise, but it will go a long way to fixing the major flaw in this legislation. With that, I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 49 (line 23), omit "24", substitute "30".

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it potentially increases expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. The amendments will increase the maximum number of hours for which child care subsidy can be paid in relation to a low income result individual and thus may have the effect of increasing total expenditure under the standing appropriation.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. If the effect of amendment (1) is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation contained in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.