Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] My understanding is that, in the bill as circulated, there's an error which means that families that earn between $70,000 and $175,000 would not receive the rate of subsidy as was announced by the minister as part of the budget. Could the minister please confirm that the government amendment which was circulated last night will address this problem?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment that is before the chamber this morning will address that issue.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, when did the government find out about this error? Were you alerted to it by someone or did you realise it on your own?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that we were made aware of it yesterday morning on advice from the office of the minister.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Thanks for that, Minister. Really, all I can say is that the Greens will support this amendment, of course, because it was a terrible error that would undermine even the modest reform that the government has made. What an embarrassment, really, for the government that your headline childcare spend—no matter how modest it was—was so poorly drafted. This government was dragged to the table to invest something in child care, and it can't even get a very basic reform right. I think it tells you all you need to know about the government's incompetence and how much it really doesn't care about early education and learning.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions. In the context of these reforms, the sustainability of childcare centres, and the sustainability of families' payments towards fees, I note that childcare providers currently have been told to stand down staff to save money and that, while the government has given permission to centres to waive gap fees, in many cases childcare centres have not been able to afford to do that, because they know that they need to hang on to their staff, and they can't afford to do that in any case. I ask the government: why have you ignored pleas for support from childcare centres and, indeed, the pleas of families for respite from gap fees being charged?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I absolutely categorically state that the government would never advise centres to stand down their staff. The government has provided unprecedented support to centres and to families. We are backing families and the childcare sector simultaneously during this pandemic, and I believe we've acted very swiftly to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to reflect the completely uncertain times that we find ourselves in. For instance, for families, we're allowing services to waive out-of-pocket costs and we have extended the number of days families are allowed to keep children absent before they lose access to the childcare subsidy. For childcare businesses the Commonwealth has partnered, in particular with New South Wales, to facilitate swift support through JobSaver to help businesses meet payroll costs if they've experienced a 30 per cent decline in revenue. For childcare workers—an absolutely critical workforce for our economy—where a worker has had hours reduced they are eligible for the COVID disaster payment of up to $750 per week.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you disagree that the government told childcare providers in the lockdown to stand down staff? It was the department of education, as I understand it, that advised that. No? So childcare providers are wrong. If childcare centres are struggling can they currently stand down staff?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have asked me two questions. My advice, very strongly, is that the government has not at any time instructed childcare centres to stand down staff. The actions of the centres themselves in relation to their staffing arrangements are a matter for them.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendments to the Fair Work Act enabling the standing down of staff in the context of COVID no longer exist. In the context of a childcare centre not being able to afford to waive fees for parents, because otherwise it won't be able to stay afloat, staff may go and get other jobs, frankly. If you can't afford to pay them, they'll have to leave. What advice are you giving childcare centres who are struggling? They have told us they are struggling. They have advocated this week that they're struggling. Yes, you've given some measures, but they're saying it's not enough. What is the government doing about this?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has allowed for the fees to be waived, but the government is still continuing to provide the government fees to the childcare centres. So even if children are absent from the childcare centre the government fees will still continue to be paid by the government to the childcare centre.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What proportion of centres in lockdown zones that have experienced attendance collapse have waived their fees?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that is not information that the Commonwealth has collected, so we would be unaware of the answer to that.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These childcare places make quite a substantial amount of money. Is there somewhere I can find out how much money they've made over the last couple of years? I can tell you they are not screaming poor. I'm just wondering: does the government keep a list—or can I find that somewhere—of the profits that these childcare centres have made over the past two years?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of the childcare providers are large businesses and would be producing annual reports, so I would certainly point you to looking at the annual reports of the big providers. If you require further information about who those big providers are, I am sure that we could provide that information for you.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all know that, yes, you get charged the full fee irrespective of whether you do or don't attend normally, but what are the changes in attendance rates because of lockdowns? How many families are paying the gap fee without attending?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that we are monitoring very closely the information that you are seeking. However, as it lags a couple of weeks I'm advised that we don't have a full set of data to be able to respond to that question at this time.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can you say that you are helping families and helping childcare centres if you don't actually know who you are helping and who you are not? It seems that, yes, some parents will get some financial respite by not being charged those fees if they're not attending but at the expense of the sustainability of some childcare centres. When do you expect you'll have that data?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I want to reiterate the fact that we have responded in this pandemic by providing support to families, providing support to childcare businesses and providing support to childcare workers, and I will continue to reiterate that. At the moment on average a guaranteed 55 per cent of fees in the Sydney area are for children who aren't attending along with the regular fees for children who are attending is, at this stage, an estimate of the situation. However, as I said before, we will continue to monitor the situation to make sure that we are alive to the very important service that is provided by childcare providers during this pandemic.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the context of the legislation, what modelling did the government do around workforce participation when examining the income limits for eligibility in the legislation?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The income limits that are being used for the changes that are being put forward by this particular amendment bill are the same limits that were in place for child care in the past.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, they are. So you've paid no attention as to whether the current disincentives to work because of childcare fees—you've paid no attention to the need to address those in this legislation, then, have you?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is completely factually incorrect. Obviously the Treasury continues to do modelling around many factors that exist particularly in relation, as you are asking, to workforce participation.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you found out about the drafting error yesterday. How is it that you were about to pass a bill with such a big mistake in there? Can you please explain to us how that actually happens?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I'm not aware of the details of how this error occurred. All I can say is as soon as it was brought to the attention of the government we sought to rectify it immediately.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand this is Minister Tudge, and I do apologise for putting you in this position, but do you know if Minister Tudge's office spotted the error themselves, or did government become aware of it because someone on Twitter commented about it about midnight on Tuesday night?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I don't actually have that information. All I know is that when the bill was here, I was advised, or the government was advised in the Senate, of the error from Minister Tudge's office yesterday morning.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have one more question. Could you please tell us, if we had have passed Minister Tudge's bill before the mistake was picked up, which was probably picked up by somebody on Twitter—I'd really like to know, because it's embarrassing for both sides; the Labor Party didn't pick it up either. You have all these staff and all these things at your disposal, yet we're making massive mistakes. What would have happened if we'd have put this bill through without now amending it?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, my understanding is that it would have been a matter that would have been picked up when the IT build was being undertaken. But I take your point. It was an error and it was sought to be rectified as soon as possible.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the context of forced participation, I've received significant advocacy from psychiatrists and others who are concerned about the return to work for women in reasonably well-paid industries, saying that it's currently a significant disincentive to them returning to work, because of the rate of childcare fees. Sure, they probably receive a good income from doing so, but they have to pay for the extra juggle that comes with taking children to child care. More specifically, what has the government done to look at some of the critical workforce shortages that exist in Australia, particularly in this time of COVID, where we know we can't import labour from overseas? Have you actually addressed and considered where you need to pull the levers to lift workforce participation? Why haven't you properly considered those issues in the context of the bill that's before us today?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the main reasons why we lifted the annual cap was for the very reason that you are raising. As a government, we have also been developing a very substantial skills package to make sure that we have the workforce that we require, going forward. In the context of this bill but also, more broadly, in the context of the entire workforce, the government continues to work on modelling to make sure that we have the workforce skills that we require to go forward.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that context, I ask why this bill doesn't come into effect until the middle of next year, if you're saying that it's to address workforce participation and shortages. That's when those changes come into effect, or have I read that wrong?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the actions of the bill are able to be implemented sooner, they will be.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does that mean? I know that the Greens have sought to bring forward some of those changes in their amendment. Are you saying you might do that of your own volition, as a government?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because of the complexity of the systems build that's required for this to be undertaken, we wanted to make sure that it was a phased-implementation approach. That's why Services Australia has requested that the completion date for the necessary systems be July 2022. However, if this is able to be brought forward, in the context of all of the work that Services Australia is currently undertaking in response to the evolving COVID pandemic, we will of course do that. We want to make sure that these policy changes are in place and that Australian families can benefit from them.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that the Greens have moved their amendment yet, but I would note in that context that we encourage the government to get on with this as soon as it can, because we need increased support for child care. However, we can't support the Greens amendment, because we view it simply as a stunt, knowing that any request made by the Senate that has funding implications needs to be done by the government and supported by the government. The Greens motion therefore gives families false hope. I encourage the government to bring forward its own changes in getting that system up and running. But I place on the record that only Labor has put forward a comprehensive plan for child care that increases support, and it is simply an exercise in false hope, really, to rely on this government to deliver anything otherwise. Labor looks forward to implementing its comprehensive package after the next election.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To add to my answer to Senator Faruqi's questions, I can also confirm that, since the government announced this initiative, I have been working with Minister Tudge, Services Australia and his department. We have worked very closely on the time line, but it does require very significant system changes to deliver. We have always been very cautious but very deliberate in our planning and our time frame. As Minister Ruston said, if we can bring it forward we will, but, again, it's more important that we get the system right to be able to deliver it for Australian families.

I now table a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move amendments (1) and (2) and request for an amendment (3) on government sheet PV119:

(1) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (lines 11 to 14), omit subclause 3A(2) of Schedule 2, substitute:

What is the applicable percentage?

(2) Subject to subclauses (4) and (5) of this clause, the individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is determined by the table in subclause 3(1), and by subclause 3(3), as modified by subclause (3) of this clause.

(2) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (lines 23 and 24), omit paragraph 3A(3) (d) of Schedule 2.

(3) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (after line 26), at the end of clause 3A of Schedule 2, add:

(4) Subclause (5) applies, and subclause (2) does not apply, if the individual's adjusted taxable income for the income year in which the CCS fortnight starts is above the lower income threshold and below the second income threshold.

(5) The individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is the lesser of 95% and the percentage worked out by:

(a) starting with the applicable percentage (the default percentage) that would apply to the individual for the session of care under item 2 of the table in subclause 3(1) and under subclause 3(2); and

(b) adding 30 percentage points to the default percentage.

Example: If the default percentage is 60%, the individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is 90%. If the default percentage is 75%, the individual's applicable percentage for the session of care is 95%.

Question agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I move the Greens request for an amendment (1) on sheet 1353:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 4), omit the table items, substitute:

This request for an amendment is very simple. It brings forward the start date of the package by one year to 1 July 2021. As I foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading, families need more support, and they need it urgently. During the debate on this bill, so many senators on this side of the chamber highlighted the issues with child care: how expensive it is and how difficult it is for families. There is no good reason why the government couldn't prioritise getting more money into the pockets of families who continue to be slugged with some of the highest childcare fees in the world. It is the government's responsibility to do that, not to say 'We will if we can.' It's in your control, if it is a priority for you—and it should be a priority for you.

Over the last 18 months we have seen the rules rewritten and entire government spending programs recalibrated or conjured out of nothing as the pandemic has demanded swift and substantial policy responses. In that light, it seems completely ridiculous to suggest that more than a full year is required in order to enact these changes through the existing government systems. We know that the government has said that it would like to start the scheme as soon as possible. Well, it's up to you to start it as soon as possible. It's up to you to start it now. If that is indeed the case, it's time to get a clear commitment.

Also, it's pretty bloody rich for Labor to stand here and say, 'This is a Greens stunt.' If the Senate agrees to this amendment today, it is going to send a very clear and very strong message to the government to make this change. That's what we're here for. This is not a stunt, Senator Pratt. This is actually trying to fix a problem that families and children and women have had for a very long time. I call on Labor and the crossbench senators: if you want to support childcare workers and educators, if you want to support families, women and children, then at least agree to this Greens amendment which will provide that support, however modest it might be.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all I thank Senator Faruqi for her incredibly productive engagement on this bill and for confirming her support for its passage. However, the government will not be supporting this amendment for the reasons that I have outlined and that I understand Senator Ruston outlined. It does require significant system and software changes, for not just Services Australia but also third-party software providers, because of the interface with thousands of childcare providers.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the request for an amendment as moved by Senator Waters on behalf of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to, subject to a request for an amendment.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to a request.

Bill reported with amendments and a request; report adopted.