Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make some remarks about the Community Support Program, which is the program under which the support for family day care has been delivered in the past and will continue to be delivered in the future. The purpose of this program is to help services in unviable areas, such as disadvantaged, regional and remote communities. But, unfortunately, this program has become yet another example of Labor's legacy of debt and financial mismanagement.

The overspend in its budget allocation was $200 million over three years. Here we have a program, which is meant to help every single type of child care—family day care, out-of-school hours, long day care—that has blown its budget by over $200 million. Seventy per cent of that entire budget is going to one single type of child care. The point is this: the Auditor-General highlighted this to the member for Adelaide, as the minister, in 2012 and made specific recommendations contained within a performance audit. They said, 'Seventy-one per cent of community support funding is going to family day care, which accounts for just 10 per cent of children in care'—and Labor does nothing to fix the problem.

The changes we are making to the eligibility criteria bring this type of child care into line with other types of child care. A budget is blown by over $200 million, an Auditor-General warns the member for Adelaide as minister and, of course, she sits on her hands while out-of-pocket costs go up for families by 40 per cent.

The member for Adelaide also mentioned in scoop-up of apparent cuts that we have made something that she made as minister—or her government made—which was the change to the childcare rebate. Remember the childcare rebate indexation pause—something announced by the Labor government but they did not have the guts to legislate it. They did not have the guts to carry it through, and they left it to us to pick up when we came into government—to fix up their mess. This is no different to all of the other Labor messes that we have inherited. The legacy of Labor is this messy concoction of red tape, band-aid solutions and, ultimately, the final test—it costs parents more. It is another example of Labor continuing to put politics before parents.

While we are talking about promises and legacies, let's consider the hallmark policy of the member for Adelaide, who brings forth this motion—the Early Years Quality Fund; the dodgy slush fund designed to drive union membership in the sector; a short-term pay rise for just 15 per cent of the entire workforce, designed to shore up this member and the Labor Party in an absolutely shocking, dirty deal never before seen by anyone on either side of this House. That is the hallmark policy of this member for Adelaide as minister—completely irresponsible at the moment, as she was completely irresponsible in government.

The member for Adelaide raised concerns about the family day care sector, and I want to address those in all seriousness. I want to make clear that as minister, I support the family day care sector. I have used it as a mum, albeit many years ago. I visit family day care providers, educators and coordination units all around the country every day, every week.

I am in touch with the educators. I am in touch with their services, and many come to my office to talk about the challenges that are before them. I do not downplay that in some cases there will be challenges; but let's remember an important feature: what we are doing is bringing this program back into line with its original intention. Seventy per cent of the funding of which the member Adelaide speaks, funding designated for disadvantaged rural and regional communities, ended up in our major cities, in major urbanised competitive markets. A funding stream designed to support market failure, if you like or rural, and regional and remote—an area I am very familiar with, as we all are on this side of the House—ended up landing and being paid to services in our major cities. Remember: the budget was well blown before this.

What we are doing is bringing this back under control and, from 1 July next year, services will be able to apply for this funding. If they are experiencing those exceptional circumstances and if they are disadvantaged, there is every chance that they will receive it.

The other important point I want to make—and I want to reassure families who might be listening to this broadcast who might be caught up in the scaremongering nonsense from the member Adelaide—is that the Community Support Program is not a fee assistance program. It is not money paid to educators. It is not money paid to parents. It does not alter the amount or the ability of parents using approved services to claim the childcare benefit and rebate. In fact, families using family day care still get the childcare benefit. They still get the childcare rebate—in fact, they get a childcare benefit that is 33 per cent higher than that of parents who use long day care. So they already recognise that there are additional supports for the parents who use these services.

We have to recognise that, in making changes to the family day care sector, we are supporting the sector to put it on a more sustainable footing for the future.

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

The member for Adelaide mentioned Weipa. After the article from which she quoted appeared in the press, it was in fact brought to my attention by the member for Leichhardt, who asked me to travel to Weipa, which I did at relatively short notice. I spoke to the centre involved—I also spoke to one at Cooktown on the way, and I have to say that there was a pretty amazing family day care educator there, as there are everywhere—and I said, 'We need to make changes to a system where the coordination unit has only one or two educators attached to it. We may not be able to continue making the same level of payment to a coordination unit designed to support a greater number of educators, but we do want family day care to continue in Weipa.'

I worked very closely—and I am still working closely—with the member for Leichhardt. In order to help the sector adjust to this change we are rolling out business advice across the country through the family day care peak bodies, because they have recognised that these are important changes that services may need to make to ensure that they are sustainable into the future. That business advice will be made available to the Weipa service and to every other service that puts up its hand and says, 'Look, we might need help.'

There are lots of different ways that you can run this model. Remember: a family day care educator in their home is a home based business, and the coordination unit, which does a great job in supporting them, can have a differing set of arrangements with them as we move forward into a new era for family day care. Let's not forget that family day care was recognised by the Productivity Commission inquiry, and is recognised by us in government, as a vital sector for the future. The member for Adelaide is quite right: the flexible care that families demand is often provided by family day care.

But I come back to my main point. We cannot stand here as the Liberal and National parties, understanding rural and regional communities as we do, and do nothing when this program, designed to support disadvantaged rural and regional communities, has overspent its budget by $200 million. The Labor Party were warned by the Auditor-General—who did a performance audit of this program—that this really was out of line, and they did nothing about it. They were too frightened to take action. They were too frightened to make the tough decisions, and they handballed it to us, just like all of the other decisions that were handballed to us, as we came into government. We are bringing that program back under control. We will continue to support the services for which the program was originally designed.

But remember this: under Labor, childcare costs went up 53 per cent, flexibility went down, affordability went down and availability went down. We inherited a system close to breaking point. This Labor party could not even support our Productivity Commission inquiry. They could not even say, 'Yes, it is a good idea to have a look at future arrangements and make changes for the benefit of families.' This Labor Party is a disgrace.

See this speech in context