Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. I refer to your plan to reduce by half the number of childcare hours accessed by vulnerable children. When asked in February whether you were considering increasing the number of hours available from 12 hours to 15 hours, you said, 'That's right.' Is this still the government's position?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her question. The government considered many things during the discussions about our child-care reforms. We have considered well and truly the interests of hardworking Australian families, which is why we are increasing the amount of support that the lowest income Australian families receive from around 72 per cent, as I have told the Senate, to 85 per cent. We have considered absolutely the priority of families who do not meet the activity test—and let us remember that the activity test requires families to only work, study or volunteer for four hours per week; it is a very light touch family activity test—and are on a very low income, below $65,000. The legislation that has been presented to the parliament and has been considered by the parliament through three different Senate inquiries proposes access to 24 hours per fortnight of care even for those families not meeting the activity test but below that threshold as part of the safety net.

It is the government's position and belief that that can adequately deliver the two sessions of care per week that are recommended for children in those circumstances. In the end six-hour sessions are analogous to a school day. They are the types of sessions that are provided in a preschool environment, if not even longer. They are the types of sessions we see in countries like New Zealand as part of their model. There are those who might wish to lobby, for their own business or commercial reasons, for longer hours, even though in many instances we do not have children sitting there during those hours. We think it is appropriate that taxpayers' money is targeted for effective early learning opportunities in care sessions that will actually be effectively utilised.

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

Mr President, I have a point of order. In standing order 73(1)(k) the rules for questions state in that questions shall not refer to debates in the current session. I think Senator Gallagher has referred to a debate in the current session.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in the current session. I did discuss it with the Clerk a little bit earlier. Providing we do not go directly to the debate and the minister in answering the question does not directly engage in the debate before the Senate it is allowable. I was listening very carefully. There was a very similar question earlier, which again I listened to very carefully. The question is in order. The minister has been in order. Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Senator Bernardi. It is something I am aware of and I will be listening to the answer, as I always do. Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government agree with Mission Australia, which says:

Children from disadvantaged families need to have access to two days per week of affordable quality early childhood education and care as a minimum. The 12 hours per week proposed is insufficient.

If so, how does the government intend to improve the activity test?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the first half of that statement but not necessarily the second half. We do accept that two sessions of quality early education and care is appropriate for children in those circumstances and that is why we are ensuring that in our legislation there is a strong safety net in place that ensures two sessions per week can be delivered and ought to be delivered. It should be delivered and that is what our legislation clearly provides for.

People are entitled to have their view about the number of hours that are necessary for that to occur. As I said before, we are providing 24 hours per fortnight, which can equate to two six-hour sessions per week for providers who are genuinely committed to providing early education services. Of course that is longer, as I said before, than many preschool hours that children attend for and is analogous to a school day. There are plenty of international examples of that being an appropriate session of care for early educational opportunities.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's proposed child-care changes seek to spend an extra $1.6 billion yet they halve the access that some of Australia's most vulnerable children will have to early childhood education. How can you justify a $1.6 billion price tag when 71,000 low-income families with children will be worse off?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can happily justify it because we are better targeting at every single level. When it comes to the safety net measures we are making sure it is better targeted so that resources are not being spent on services that are not being utilised and instead is targeted to ensure that services are supported to deliver high-quality early education in sessions of care appropriate for the children there and making sure that they are the maximum utilisation of those taxpayer dollars. Equally, I can justify the increased investment because overwhelmingly—almost entirely, in fact—that increased investment is going to the lowest income Australian families. It is actually going to the hardest-working Australian families. People who are meeting the activity test but earning low incomes will be thousands of dollars a year better off thanks to our reforms. These are exactly the types of measures that those opposite should embrace and support because they are delivering more dollars to support people with their cost-of-living pressures and their child-care costs and empowering those families to choose to work the hours that suit them. (Time expired)