Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is not a single member in the House who does not recognise the unique benefits of family day care as a child care option. Yet once again we have an opposition who begin a publicity rumour before the Productivity Commission has finalised their investigations. Phrases taken out of context from the draft are distorted, putting distress and disquiet in the minds of working parents, family day care educators and service facilitators.

Family day care is one of the best child care options for a working parent. I say this with complete conviction as all three of my now grown children went to wonderful family day care homes. In Gilmore, we are blessed by having one of the stand-out examples of family day care service which is coordinated under the watchful and dedicated Helen Waterhouse employed by the Shoalhaven City Council. This service was recently audited and found to be exemplary for safety and educator training.

In regional areas, family day care is one of the better options, where the tyranny of distance often means that the usual care hours of nine to five are completely impractical and it is essential to have a robust, sustainable and affordable delivery of services. As a past day care mum, I completely support this service. These surrogate families are outstanding and the standards are even better today, with the child care providers being innovative educators in their programing. I have been lucky enough to have seen some of this amazing material and it is very impressive.

However, the strong growth in family day care services meant the budget blew out by almost $200 million. In 2012, the Australian National Audit Office reported to the Labor government, recommending a review of eligibility guidelines. This, unfortunately, was ignored, resulting yet again in another fine Labor mess to sort out.

There are also some anomalies in family day care, with one example as follows. Some children nominated on a daily basis as being 'at risk' get fully funded hours of care, which seems more than reasonable until you find out that these children are being returned to homes where they are still at risk. Is this the best application of a family day care service? Surely even Labor can see that a) this is financially unsustainable, and b) even more importantly, it should trigger an assessment of the overall welfare of these children for alternate placement.

No government program has a limitless bucket of available funding. There must be accountability. This is especially relevant for regional child care, the original catalyst for family day care funding. Since 2011, there has been a massive growth in family day care, but most this has been in metropolitan areas. It is important to remember that approved family day care services are still eligible to administer child care benefit and the child care rebate on behalf of families, regardless of changes to the CSP, and that families using family day care receive a rate of child care benefit that is more than 30 per cent higher than for other types of child care. The maximum rate of CCB for one child in family day care is $5.47 per hour compared to only $4.10 per hour for other types of care.

The introduction of eligibility criteria means that funds go to the greatest places of need. It also means that family day care services criteria are the same as other services such as long day care and outside school hours care. The cap of $250,000 placed on the amount of operational support funding from CSP that a family day care service can claim in any financial year means that the funds are more evenly distributed, especially to rural and regional Australia and especially to Gilmore.

It must be noted that CSP is paid to family day care services, not to educators or parents. These changes do not impact on the ability of service operators to expand or open more services or to continue to provide care for the existing families. This shows that the government, far from attempting to reduce family day care, is making it more affordable for working parents, including budgeting $28.5 billion over four years to assist these families with childcare costs. It really is quite tiresome when those in opposition, having been warned that the system is unsustainable, that the funding guidelines need to be reviewed, do not have the guts to actually follow the advice they are given. And then they jump up and down in outrage when that same advice is actually acted upon on an issue that they deemed to be in the too-hard basket. Government is not about being popular; it is about making the best decisions for the long haul, listening to the stakeholders, acknowledging the wisdom of the reporting investigators and investing the dollars of Mr and Mrs Taxpayer in the most sustainable and equitable manner possible. This issue is about a flexible, fair, accessible and affordable suite of childcare options so that working Australians can get on with the job and work.

See this speech in context