Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 3064 standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) the Government's economic mismanagement and cost-of-living crisis has led to higher wage bills, and higher utility, rent and grocery bills for providers;

(b) the bill will place further administrative burden on providers, particularly small and medium providers;

(c) the Government's decision to include a workplace instrument in this bill is unnecessary and puts pressure on service providers to unionise their workforce;

(d) the bill will put further financial pressure on providers who will have to cover the majority of the on-costs, cannot increase their fees and have to pay the wages upfront, whilst receiving reimbursement in arrears;

(e) the Government has still not provided all relevant details of the grant program to service providers, which has put further undue stress on service providers, and created confusion within the sector;

(f) the Government has done nothing to address child care deserts and thin markets around the country, and this bill will not increase access for parents who currently have none; and

(g) the bill is a one-off sugar hit, which will only increase inflation and further contribute to current cost-of-living pressures".

The Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 legislates a special account to assist with a government funded 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators and teachers. The special account will be used to administer grant funding through the early childhood education and care worker retention payment program.

I do note the bill does not credit any funds to the special account, and we assume appropriation will occur at a later point in the budget process. The bill does not set out what the wage increase will be—however, we know from the media announcement it will be 10 per cent from next month and an additional five per cent in December 2025—nor does the bill include the specific conditions that service providers will need to meet to be eligible. Some conditions have been included in the grant guidelines, but there are some key details that have still not been provided to service providers, and that, obviously, is of concern. The special account is time limited and will cease on 30 June 2028.

The coalition does have several concerns with this policy, but we will not stand in the way of a pay rise for early childhood educators and teachers. I have to say that it was clear to anyone who heard this announcement in August that this was a pre-election sugar hit which perhaps shows that the Albanese government cares more about politics than tackling cost-of-living pressures. The $3.6 billion price tag of this policy will do very little for educators and teachers, and that's because they have to deal with the escalating cost of living under this government—paying the bills; putting food on the table; paying the mortgage or the rent. As all Australians know, the costs are going through the roof under this Labor government. The Prime Minister's claims of a pay increase of up to $155 per week fails to take into account the ongoing cost-of-living crisis which will see much of this wage increase eroded by inflation.

Not so long ago, you could walk into a supermarket, spend $100 and buy a fair amount of the week's shopping for a family. It's difficult now to buy more than a couple of meals for that amount of money. The costs are just horrendous. So many Australians are really suffering.

That, of course, is because the Albanese government has mismanaged the economy to the point where so many families are in crisis. Labor's failure to break the back of inflation means hardworking families are paying higher prices, higher interest rates and higher taxes for longer.

It's not just families struggling with cost-of-living pressures. It's also businesses, and they include, of course, small- and medium-sized early learning providers—providers who are currently weighing up whether this grant program is worth the additional administrative and financial burden.

We are concerned about the lack of transparency from this government which has left providers scratching their heads as to whether they can afford to sign up to the program. The grant guidelines released in October should have given service providers some clarity around the program, but instead they've given rise to more questions than answers in many cases.

Since the announcement in August, the government has been coy about releasing the full details of the scheme, with many basic questions left unanswered—or, in some instances, providers being given a generic response. These providers, particularly small businesses, are really wondering, in some cases, how they are going to keep the doors open, because costs have gone up so much. Less than a month out from the start date, providers are still unsure about how much they will receive, how exactly they will be audited to ensure the funding is appropriately spent and what will happen when the program ends in two years.

There is also a lot of confusion regarding the fee restraint cap of 4.4 per cent in the first year and 4.2 per cent in the second year. While Labor has tried to reassure the sector that they have used appropriate data to get to these figures, many providers are still confused and frustrated about the lack of transparency. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, we heard from several stakeholders who are concerned about financial uncertainty, as the government has still not released the full details of this scheme. That really is not good enough, and, as I say, it creates a lot of uncertainty. The grant program, as I mentioned, imposes a fee cap on providers, but it fails to cover the full cost of the wage rise. So leaving the majority of service providers out of pocket to cover their associated on-costs is a big concern. Now, that's probably not the case for large providers.

That's something that maybe they can deal with, but for small and medium providers, particularly not-for-profits who are just getting by, that really is not an option.

According to the Productivity Commission report released in September, only 13 per cent of providers currently have an enterprise agreement in place. Early childhood educators do an incredible job of caring for and educating our youngest Australians, but we are deeply concerned about the requirement for providers have a workplace instrument in place to be eligible for this program. We believe this is very ideologically driven. This is a classic example of Labor trying to appease the unions. Numerous stakeholders have raised concern about the cost and the administrative burden of implementing a workplace instrument in such a short timeframe, and we know we heard in the Senate inquiry that this is actually not needed to deliver the program. So this is very much driven by ideology and by looking after the unions. It is another example of the government not caring for small and medium businesses.

In particular, Brent Ferguson from the Australian Industry Group told the Senate inquiry:

… forcing an employer to enter into formal workplace agreements to secure funding will impose unnecessary red tape and burden on employers.

He also said:

… this could be achieved by requiring employers to implement a written contractual agreement with their employees to implement wage increases instead of through a formal workplace instrument.

In its submission, the Business Council of Australia also raised concerns about the workplace instrument, saying:

It should be the decision of the ECEC provider as to what is the most appropriate … The complex and time-consuming process of bargaining and agreement making may not always be appropriate.

As I say, we've had a number of concerns raised. I also understand that the Australian Childcare Alliance and P&Cs Qld told us in the inquiry that it would cost thousands of dollars to sign up to the multi-employer agreement or to establish their own agreement across multiple services, which, of course, is another enormous industrial relations burden placed on childcare operators by this government.

The Outside School Hours Council of Australia has sent numerous versions of an IFA to the Department of Education to ensure the document they will be using is acceptable, but they are still waiting to hear whether it's okay. That's just not acceptable. Here is an example of a council of many providers wanting to do the right thing. They're wanting to make sure that the workplace instrument that they enter into is compliant and doesn't give rise to any issues, and the government is not able to provide that sort of information. Given the very shortly lead time—the scheme is just about to start—providers will be placed under the most enormous strain. In fact, it's pretty clear that this was deliberate. The government wanted to do that. The government wanted to do everything it could. Unfortunately, the result of that effort is that it is small and medium early education providers, who do the most incredible job, particularly in rural and regional Australia, that will face the most burden.

I mentioned that I will also be moving a second reading amendment. I want to just outline what that second reading amendment is. While we are not declining to give the bill a second reading, we are asking the Senate to note and endorse that the government's economic mismanagement and cost-of-living crisis has led to higher wage bills and higher utility, rent and grocery bills for childhood education providers. The bill will place further administrative burden on providers, particularly small and medium providers. The government's decision to include a workplace instrument in this bill is unnecessary and puts pressure on service providers to unionise their workforce.

The bill will put further financial pressure on providers, which will have to cover the majority of the on-costs and cannot increase their fees and have to pay the wages upfront whilst receiving reimbursement in arrears—again, another burden.

The second reading amendment also includes a provision that the government has still not provided with relevant details of the grant program to service providers, which has put further undue stress on service providers and created confusion within the sector.

The government has done nothing to address childcare deserts and thin markets around the country, and this bill will not increase access for parents who currently do not have access to a childcare centre. As I mentioned before, the bill is a one-off sugar hit which will only increase inflation, further contributing to current cost-of-living pressures.