Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to put on the record that I think it is inappropriate to be describing senators according to the colour of their skin, their age or their gender, quite frankly. I think that, if the boot were on the other foot and I started talking in those sorts of terms about Senator Hanson-Young or anyone else, that would be truly inappropriate. We would not accept that in relation to child care. I raised before with the minister the point that referring access to child care or replacing people because their skin colour is wrong or their age is wrong—not in this case but in other circumstances in those sorts of descriptive terms—is false and wrong.

So I stand in this place and I say that the descriptions and emotional assessments that have been taken by Senator Hanson-Young in relation to Senator Leyonhjelm's skin colour or melanin content, his age and his gender do not have any real place in this discussion.

Whilst I am on my feet with 13 minutes and 37 seconds to go and we are discussing the idea of race and the idea of preferential treatment and things of that nature, I would like to thank the minister for responding very promptly to my earlier concerns. To remind the Senate: I was concerned—and I made this point during my speech on the second reading—that during Senate estimates I discovered that someone who had a place in child care for their child could be replaced at 14 days notice because someone deemed more worthy was going to access that place. Those more worthy characteristics related to the language one's parents spoke at home. If you were from a non-English-speaking family background, you could boot out the English-speaking, Australian-born child that had already got a place in child care. I thought that was wrong. Similarly, if you are from a low-socioeconomic background, your child can take the place—and I mean replace at 14 days notice—a child from a non-low-socioeconomic background. I think that is wrong.

It is the same in relation to skin colour. If you are in Aboriginal child, you can take precedence and replace a child who is non-Aboriginal who has an existing place in child care. They are wrong. I think it is prejudiced and bigoted and racist, you can say whatever you like. Senator Birmingham, to his credit—I know he is under the pump—has written me this letter, which I would like to include in Hansard.

It says, 'Dear Senator Bernardi, further to your questions regarding the priority of access guidelines at additional estimates on 1 March'—which was really prompted by today, Senator Birmingham, let's be frank—'I write to clarify the future arrangements regarding the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016. As discussed, under these guidelines, which if used have been used to a very limited extent'—I will have some comments on that shortly—'priority is given to children in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, children in families which include a disabled person, children in families which include an individual whose taxable income is less than $44,457 in 2016-17, children in families with a non-English-speaking background, children in socially isolated families and children of single parents. These guidelines were reviewed in conjunction with the developments of the child-care package. The draft of the new guidelines, which have already been subject to consultation, will include two priorities which apply to vacant places only as follows:'—that is very pertinent—'the first priority is a child at risk of serious abuse or neglect i.e, a child receiving Additional Child Care Subsidy (Child Wellbeing). The second priority is the child of a single parent who satisfies or of parents who both satisfy the activity tests and are undertaking paid work, whether or not as an employee.'

In respect to what the minister has written there, I make the point that during estimates it seemed the minister and the department were unaware that someone with an existing place could be required to vacate that place with 14-days notice. Then, when they were made aware of it, the department in particular said they were unaware if it had ever been used. I asked them if they are required to be notified if it has ever been used, and they, of course, said no. I asked them how they would know, and they said, 'People talk.' This has been in place for 10 years, apparently, and no-one has bothered to talk about it. But they bothered to talk to me about it. I just find that extraordinary. The department has a tin ear to these things, perhaps. Anyway, they promised to review it and they have reviewed it.

I have also raised with the minister the issue of the activity test, because I had some concerns there. The minister has assured me that the activity test applies not to someone based on their means but on their actions and activities. It is not discriminatory and not prejudicing those people who work more hours or less hours. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It applies to anyone seeking work and it means that people who are actually working will receive priority placements for vacancies, above those who are not working, subject to priority 1.

Minister, I am seeking a confirmation that my understanding of your unsigned letter—you can sign it here in Hansard, virtually—is correct and that there will be no prejudicial placements. I am seeking confirmation that people will not be removed from existing placements under any circumstances, because they speak the wrong language, have the wrong colour skin or come from functional families, rather than your previously preferred priority guidelines.