EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES (REGISTRATION AND STANDARDS) (MODIFICATION OF NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 February 2013.)

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (10:43): The government opposes this bill also and it revisits the original debate from 2011 and pre-empts the results of the COAG review of 2014 and seeks to delay quality improvements in childcare services in South Australia. It does this by trying to amend or, effectively, revoke relevant sections of the Education and Care Services National Regulations that operate in South Australia under Part 2 of the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Act 2011. Specifically, the bill seeks to:

reduce open floor space requirements;

delay improvements in staff-child ratios;

enshrine in legislation provisions about which staff can cover others whilst on breaks for up to an hour; and

allow a person who is working toward a teaching qualification to occupy a role that is currently intended to be filled by a fully qualified teacher.

On 16 January 2013, Goodstart Early Learning issued a press release with inputs from the Goodstart CEO and the CEO of Early Childhood Australia. The press release expressed concern about South Australia's high ratio and said that the sector was committed to the new national quality reforms. If we had the worst quality or staff figures in the country in any other area, the opposition would be howling in protest. In this case, however, they are prepared to shamelessly promote the lowest common denominator. In my own electorate, having visited a Goodstart childcare centre and, having seen the improvements they have put into the Salisbury North area recently, they are to be commended in their seizing of the quality childhood framework.

I am proud to say that many South Australian operators already provide more staff than the minimum required by the law, and currently the law ensures that all toddlers will receive appropriate care ratios by 2016. With regard to the proposal to allow staff with lower qualifications to cover teacher breaks for up to an hour, I understand the current policy provides for breaks up to 30 minutes. The regulatory authority is responsible for managing these matters, and the government's view is that this is an appropriate thing. Queensland and WA are much more proscribed with this requirement.

Finally, the proposal to allow a person who is actively working towards a recognised teaching requirement to work in the role of a qualified teacher is not supported by the government. I understand the current legislation allows the regulatory authority to grant exemptions to the degree qualification requirement on a case-by-case basis for a fee of $100, and where the board is satisfied that that specific person should be granted the exemption. By creating a blanket exemption a person could enrol part-time in the four-year degree program, work for many years in the role before they are actually qualified, and then there is no guarantee that when they have completed their degree that they will not leave and be replaced by another person who has not completed their training.

I note that the member for Waite, in his speech supporting another childcare motion, has been openly critical of the emerging educational focus in early childhood services. The legislation takes a firm position with the specialist early childhood educators in childcare centres being responsible for designing, delivering and managing key curricula for our children and their futures. For other workers in the childcare centres, there is more flexibility. For example, a requirement of the current legislation that, by 2014, 50 per cent of staff must have or be working towards a diploma qualification is a good thing. The remaining staff will be required to have or be working towards a certificate III. Similar to specialist teacher positions, there are a number of degrees of flexibility and exemption provisions built into these requirements.

I remind the house that passing this bill may put our national partnership funding at risk, especially with regard to the staff ratio, because they are at the heart of quality reform. This bill seeks to revert space requirements to those which are included in the 1985 requirements of 2.8 square metres per child. Both the 1998 regulations and the 2011 legislation provided exemptions for centres that were in compliance with the old rules when they changed. This exemption applies until the centre is renovated or transferred to another provider. This exemption is targeted so that our children's childcare centres will comply with the new requirements over time.

Conversely, the member for Waite's bill is seeking to turn back time. With regard to staff/child ratios, the member for Waite has been very economical with the detail—less than fulsome. The existing legislation requires that centres have a staff/child ratio of 1:5 for children aged between 24 and 36 months by 2016. By the time this comes into operation, centres will have had five years to prepare for the change.

South Australia currently has the worse staff/child ratio for this age group in Australia. Centres can operate with just one staff to 10 toddlers. If you have been a mother with one child, image trying to deal with 10 in this situation, and the impact it has on many children and their future. The member for Waite has been quite happy to quote the former Queensland premier in his second reading speech, claiming that she was concerned with additional costs to parents due to regulation changes. What the member for Waite neglected to say was that Queensland already had a 1:6 ratio, whilst we have been operating on a 1:10 ratio, an important fact.

In response to several points raised by the member for Waite in his second reading speech, I note that his view about the impact of fees on families seems to change quite regularly. On 20 February 2013 the member stated:

The only people who can afford this are the wealthy and those who are able to access the maximum of the childcare benefit, those most in need. Middle Australia—the families in the middle—are the ones getting crushed.

On 21 February, he went on to state:

These pressures are felt hardest by single parent families and families from lower socioeconomic groups.

These are the people I represent in this house. He further goes on to say:

They are the very children who will be moved out of child care first.

In my area I am not seeing that. On one day, the member believes the poorest families are fine because of large government benefits, but the next day he believes these benefits seem to have disappeared.

The house should treat with caution some of the media reports quoted by the member for Waite. The Australian Community Children's Services 'Trends in Community Children's Services Survey' reported that 89 per cent of respondents from the non-profit sector and 11 per cent of the commercial respondents believed that fees were significantly lower than those reported in the media by opponents of the National Quality Framework.

The 2012 Report on Government Services also showed that after rebates and subsidies childcare costs for families with one child in care were about 8.2 per cent and 9.4 per cent of weekly disposable income. Families with two or more children in care were spending between 14 per cent and 17.4 per cent on care after rebates. In his second reading speech, the member for Waite talked about:

...husband and wife teams, both with a job and earning perhaps up to $150,000, who are completely means tested out of the childcare benefit. These are the people who are falling through the crack.

This fails to mention the rebate which is not means tested and provides 50 per cent of the out-of-pocket costs up to $7,500.

I welcome any suggestions to improve the quality and affordability of childcare services. I do not particularly welcome amendments designed to benefit a small proportion of providers who have chosen not to make progress towards the national new quality framework or who operate systems compliant with regulations that are almost 30 years old. The member for Waite in his second reading speech on childcare issues harked back to the unregulated days before 1972, and turning the clock back to 1985 would take us three-quarters of the way there. The government opposes this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Griffiths.