Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the importance of Government support for child care in order to improve workforce participation and early childhood education;

(2) condemns the Government for its $157 million cut to Family Day Care (FDC) funding by changing the eligibility for the FDC component of the Community Support Program and forcing existing services to re-apply;

(3) notes that:

(a) FDC:

(i) supports more than 98,000 families and 165,000 children across Australia; and

(ii) employs more than 25,000 educators, as well as coordination unit staff;

(b) Department of Education figures indicate that over 80 per cent of all FDC services will be denied essential funding due to these cuts; and

(c) these cuts will force FDC services to increase fees, reduce services or close; and

(4) calls on the Government to reverse its cruel and short-sighted decision to cut FDC funding.

Child care is a vital service to over one million Australian families. It is a vital service that enables parents to fulfil their economic potential by returning to work and boosting workforce participation, which is essential to our economic performance. It also increases and improves early childhood education, which numerous studies have demonstrated can have a significant beneficial impact on the educational outcomes for our kids. Unfortunately, child care is a vital service that is under threat by over $1 billion worth of budget cuts by this government. One aspect of these cuts is a $157 million cut to family day care by changing the family day care component of the Community Support Program.

Family day care is an important part of the childcare apparatus in this country. It supports over 98,000 families, helps 165,000 children and employs more than 25,000 educators. This cut places severe pressure on the sector. Coalition speakers after me will argue one of two excuses for their actions. They will either claim that this action was necessary to stop examples of rorting by family day care providers or they will claim that it is not a cut; it is just a change in the eligibility, to better target the service. Neither excuse stacks up. Neither excuse is reasonable or believable. Both are pathetic justifications for a mean-spirited and counterproductive cut.

On the first excuse, about rorting, if there is rorting it needs to be stamped out, but you do not do this by penalising the vast majority of family day care providers, who are doing the right thing. In fact, I would submit that, by reducing the support for the high-quality providers, more space will be opened up for cheap, fly-by-night operators. On the second excuse, about how this is just changing eligibility rather than being a cut, the fact is that, on the Department of Education's own figures, this change will mean that over 80 per cent of services will be denied funding. If it looks like a cut, walks like a cut and smells like a cut, it is a cut—and this budget cut is reflected in the budget papers, which quite clearly identify a $157 million saving to the budget bottom line.

The end result of this is that family day care services will be forced to either increase fees, reduce services or close. The peak industry body for family day care services has estimated that the average impact of this budget cut will be an increase in family day care fees of $35 for a family. Let me repeat that: this cut will mean that the average family will pay $1,500 a year more in family day care. This is $1,500 that the average family can least afford to spend. This will have a massive impact, especially in regional areas, where family day care is more prevalent. I challenge any of the speakers from the other side who purport to represent regional areas to try and defend a cut that attacks regional areas so egregiously.

The impact in my area will be very severe. Lake Macquarie City Council provides a family day care service that is rated as exceeding national quality standards, and it provides this service to 719 families and 900 kids. It operates with 261 full-time equivalent staff, and this is equivalent to nearly seven childcare centres. It supports 90 small businesses, and there are 300 kids on the waiting list. Continuing delivery of this program will be much harder due to these cuts. It is just one of the many local services impacted by this heartless cut. I will continue to fight for the thousand families in my area impacted by this cut. I will continue to fight for affordable child care. I will continue to fight for the best early education for kids. I will continue to fight for the best support for parents to return to work.

We need only contrast this heartless cut with the government's ridiculous Paid Parental Leave scheme. Their Paid Parental Leave scheme will provide $50,000 to wealthy families in North Sydney who have a child whereas over 80 per cent of eligible constituents in my area will receive less than $20,000. Even if this Paid Parental Leave scheme were delivered well, which it will not, the Grattan Institute has found that investment in childcare services is twice as effective as a Paid Parental Leave scheme in terms of improving workforce participation. We should keep in mind that this ridiculous, unequal Paid Parental Leave scheme will cost over $22 billion over the forward estimates, compared to the $154 million cut we are talking about here.

Child care is vital to this country. Child care is about the economic future of our parents, our families and our kids going forward. We need to be supporting it more, not continuing these heartless and mean cuts.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both sides of this chamber value child care and the $28.5 billion that we spend every four years on it. Both sides would agree that we need to be looking after disadvantaged, remote and regional communities. Where we differ is on this motion. Normally the member for Charlton brings high-quality motions for debate here, but alas not today. This was a fund designed specifically to make sure that childcare services were available to—let me say it again—remote, rural and disadvantaged communities. That was why the fund was created. If we did not have a problem with misdistribution, we would not have needed the community support fund. That is its job.

We know that, in the end, large numbers of areas in Australia that do not have a disadvantaged, regional or remote population were accessing these funds. At some point you need a certain amount of ability to target resources, and that simply was not happening. What we have here is the notion that every childcare service, both family and long day care, is deserving, but not all of these services are remote, rural or disadvantaged. If those who are accessing the money are none of those three then a responsible government would do something about it—and an irresponsible government, like the Labor alternative, would not.

Since 2006 the floodgates have been open and effectively this money, instead of being appropriately targeted, has been spread fairly homogenously across the sector. What of course happened was you did not actually fix the problems you set out to address. Of course you do not need to just ask me that. You can ask the Audit Office, which recognised that 80 per cent of these funds were being directed into areas other than where they were needed and so a refocusing was required. Do not even ask the Audit Office. Let us look at the name of the program. It is the Community Support Program. The CS in CSP is 'community support'. It is not the 'long day care support program' or the 'family day care support program'; it is the Community Support Program.

The program is to look after communities that do not have access to the day care they need and look after the regional, remote areas of Australia where it is not viable and the highly disadvantaged areas where it is not economically viable to build a day care centre. That is the problem the government set out to fix, but we were left with the Labor alternative who really had no fiscal clue, did they? No. The Labor Party—and I have said this before—never saw a special cause that they could not fund and they never saw a reason to take someone's dollars away without giving them to someone else, with no concern for quality. In the six years of the Labor government effectively we had a complete focus on the cash and no focus on the quality. So as long as the money was being taken from someone and given to someone else it really did not matter if any problems were fixed or not. That was the great challenge.

We were left with massive draw downs of nearly $200 million to keep funding a system of child care that was sending money off to the communities that did not need the money to remain viable. It simply went in to help with the operational costs of providing child care. But that is not the point of the fund. The fund was set up to fix inequities. It was set up to help communities that could not get day care, particularly family day care.

The bell is tolled in the motion from the opposition member. It says that up to 80 per cent of these services stand to lose, whatever that means. How on earth can 80 per cent of these services be at threat of non-viability? How can 80 per cent of the services all be disadvantaged, remote or regional? It is a preposterous case and it just shows that the program, as the Audit Office indicated, was poorly directly and not doing the job it was designed to do.

Let us remember that we are taking over from the Labor government that allowed childcare costs to skyrocket 53 per cent over the six years that they were in power. They promised us 222 childcare centres to end that double drop-off but barely built a dozen, probably due to simply the weakness of the will of the minister. Lastly, of course, we saw costs for families increase by $3,500 per child. As I said, they lost control of the agenda and simply started funnelling the money out for no good purpose.

Governments will have to slow down. They will have to calm down in tough periods and focus the money right. The point of the CSP was to ensure that there were childcare services all around Australia, even in areas where the member for Charlton has not visited and even in those remote parts of Australia where he will probably never visit. We know there are Australian families who deserve a childcare service that they can access so that they can go to work. Seasonal workers, harvest workers and mining workers—sure, they do not cross our paths every day, but they have just the same rights as those who live in the electorate of the member for Charlton in metropolitan Australia, which does not have the need for those extra subsidies. It is completely viable in many parts of metro Australia. I support the government's decision.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call to the bandaged member for Shortland.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The contribution by the member for Bowman shows that he really does not understand the issue. My electorate is one of the lowest income electorates within Australia. ABS data will confirm that. I rise to support the member for Charlton's excellent motion on child care. In doing so I condemn the Abbott government on its short-sighted cuts to family day care. Furthermore, I call on the Abbott government to reverse its $157 million cut to family day care and in doing so I call on members opposite to stand up in their party room and tell the Prime Minister that they do not support this attack on Australian disadvantaged families. It is estimated that more than 80 per cent of family day care in Australia will lose funding, which will make those services unviable.

Family day care is a grassroots organisation which provides care to over 165,000 children across Australia, over 1,500 on the Central Coast of New South Wales and 900 in Lake Macquarie. Many of those children who receive family day care in Lake Macquarie and Wyong shire live in the Shortland electorate. Family day care also supports 98,000 families in Australia and 719 families in Lake Macquarie. This support enables the parents of those children receiving family day care to work or undertake study so they can ultimately obtain a job. The Abbott government says it wants all Australians to work, yet it is ripping funds from services that make this possible. This is unconscionable and must be reversed.

The mean-spirited Abbott government budget announced changes to the eligibility for family day care providers to access funding through the Community Support Program, a program that is designed to address disadvantage—and disadvantage across different areas: high levels of domestic violence, high levels of single parent families and high levels of unemployment. These are issues that are predominant in many areas within the Shortland electorate.

Lake Macquarie council will lose $300,000 from the Community Support Program from 30 June when the Department of Education will stop all community support contracts with family day care providers. All providers have to reapply for funding. In the Lake Macquarie part of Shortland family day care is provided by Lake Macquarie council and it currently operates with an average of 261 full-time places, which is equivalent to 6.5 child care centres providing 40 child care places. There are currently 298 children on the waiting list, of which 188 are less than two years old and 27 our unborn. It is cost neutral to Lake Macquarie council and relies on approximately $300,000 received from the Community Support Program to ensure high-quality education and care for children in the community and supports 90 educators who provide the service.

In the Wyong Shire part of the Shortland electorate family day care is provided by Child and Family Services Wyong Shire Inc., a community-based organisation that provides child care to over 600 families and 860 children. It is one of the largest providers of child care in New South Wales and has been operating for 30 years. This service provides family support programs for around 1,500 children across the Central Coast and employs 160 people. The changes to the Community Support Program will equate to a loss of $250,000 to the Wyong program. The loss of these places in both services would be devastating in an environment where there is already a chronic child care shortage, with similarly long waiting lists in child care centres.

The Abbott government promised to fix the problems families were having accessing child care before the election. Instead, it is ripping $157 million out of family day care and $1 billion out of child care. It is yet another example of the Abbott government saying one thing before the election and one thing after. You just cannot trust the Abbott government. (Time expired)

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also support the motion that has been moved today by the member for Charlton. It shows another example of cuts that have been made by this government to the early childhood education sector, and the cuts continue. This is $1 billion that has been cut from a sector that is vital not just for ensuring women's increased participation in the workforce but also ensuring the education of our youngest Australians. This particular motion relates to family day care services, which provide another option for families instead of enrolling their children in long day care. Family day care is an alternative option, and in regional Australia it is an important option.

I want to focus on what this family day care model means for regional Australia. In a number of towns they do not have the population to sustain large or small classes of organised child care or early childhood education. Family day care is an alternative model and it is proving to be quite popular. There are some towns in my electorate that do not have a day care centre; they do not have formal child care. The option they do have is family day care that is being run from people's homes, predominantly by women as they establish themselves as small businesses.

What we are seeing from this government's proposed cuts is that more than 80 per cent of all family day care services will lose funding from next year. Next year 80 per cent of services will lose funding—in my electorate alone that is 16 services—and the majority of them will lose their funding or some form of funding as a result of this government's attacks on early childhood education. As I have mentioned, in some of our towns it is the only form of child care that is available. It is also a flexible model that does help parents who may be working shift work. It is a flexible model—parents are able to enrol their children in family day care whether it be one day a week or for half days—and it is a bit of a pay-as-you-go model. Currently a lot of the services in my area are full. They have waiting lists because some parents prefer the option of the family day care model. However, these services are under threat. What that means is that families in my electorate will have fewer options available to them.

The facts are these: family day care has operated for more than 35 years; more than 94,000 families currently use family day care and more than 150,000 children are enrolled in family day care as I speak to this motion; there are more than 18,000 family day care educators. Most of those family day care educators are small operators, they are small businesses. Essentially the educator is also the owner of the small business. Family day care provides the majority of flexible non-standard hours of care—it is an alternative model—and it is also part of the national quality framework that provides for early years education. These cuts to family day care are just another attack by this government on the national quality framework.

If we are serious about ensuring that our youngest minds, our youngest Australians, have the best start in life, then we need to ensure that we can continue to fund the national quality framework and the services that underpin it whether it be preschool, early childhood education through childcare centres and long day care centres, or family day care. Concern about these funding cuts was first raised with me when I met with the CWA in my part of the world: the Mount Alexander CWA, the Castlemaine CWA and the Harcourt CWA branches presented me with a letter condemning this government for its funding cuts to family day care. They are an active network that ensures a number of single mums in the area have a service that they can rely on when they go for job interviews, when they do their mutual obligation to ensure they can continue to receive some form of benefit from the government. These cuts now put that service for those single families at risk, and that is one of the main reasons why I support this motion, which has been moved in support of and in defence of family day care.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always love a private member's motion. It is a chance for you to get up there and talk on something about which you are passionate. Normally you will see the mover of the motion stay in here so they can control the debate and hear what other people are saying, but such is the participation in this debate that these people just make a statement and walk out.

The member for Charlton came in to talk about family day care. His first words were: 'I know what the government is going to say.' He does not have a plan for family day care. He wanted to take a quick pot shot at the government. The Labor Party will stand condemned for all time when it comes to day care. What was their response to the GFC? They were going to build 260 childcare centres. That was the big plan. We were going to declare war on child care and the lack of available spaces. They built 38 and said, 'Job done!'. That is 14 per cent. No wonder they always thought they could get to a surplus. They stand condemned for their words on child care.

Debate interrupted.