HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CHILDCARE SERVICES

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Hamilton-Smith:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon the availability and affordability of childcare services in South Australia and, in particular—

(a) the types of childcare services presently available across the state;

(b) the current and future need for childcare services in South Australia;

(c) federal, state and local government capital investment, concessions, rebates, subsidies, means testing arrangements and out of pocket costs to families;

(d) the impact of regulation, accreditation and other quality control arrangements across each level of government upon the quality and costs of care;

(e) the impact of workforce management and remuneration arrangements;

(f) training requirements and capabilities;

(g) competitive neutrality issues between private and non-private childcare providers including taxation issues, federal, state and local government charges and regulatory fairness; and

(h) options within existing funding parameters for improving the choices available to families, reducing childcare costs and making more efficient use of taxpayer and private investment and funding.

(Continued from 20 February 2013.)

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:34): The government opposes this motion from the member for Waite. Quite simply, it does nothing to improve support for families now and predominantly duplicates national initiatives that are complete or are already underway and will continue into 2014.

For example, the types of services available in South Australia as of August 2012 were stated in the member for Waite's speech in support of this motion—305 centres, 42 networks and 830 other services. The commonwealth has established the mychild.gov.au website where families can instantly search areas within 20 kilometres of any given location for vacancies across age ranges and times. For families who have trouble with the internet, there is a toll-free child care access hotline.

Predicting future needs for child care is a complex matter and the Department for Education and Child Development has recently announced a population planning approach for future services and the government established a 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide so we can sustainably manage growth across our community. With regard to current need, the Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services also provides high-level data on demand, the latest of which shows South Australia with the lowest proportion of children aged under 12 in Australia who required care that was not available.

With regard to concessions, rebates, subsidies, means testing and out-of-pocket costs, the commonwealth also makes vast amounts of information available in Medicare, family assistance and Centrelink offices. Online estimators allow families access to details of rebates and concessions even if they struggle with the technical information.

When the Liberals first introduced the childcare rebate, it was the childcare tax rebate administered by the Australian Taxation Office. It may not have been income tested but it was income tax tested. It was capped at 30 per cent of fees. You only received it if you had paid at least that amount of income tax, and you had to wait until the end of the following financial year for payment. This disproportionately favoured high income families who paid large amounts of income tax and could afford to wait 12 months for a payment.

I am very pleased that under our federal Labor government the rebate now does much more than ever before. It is not linked to the tax system. It is a real rebate without an income test or an income tax test. It is now 50 per cent and not 30 per cent, and you can receive it weekly, fortnightly, quarterly or annually. As noted by the member for Waite, there is also the income tested childcare benefit payment for families with incomes less than around $150,000. Even without these rebates, the latest Report on Government Services shows that Australia has:

the lowest median fees in the nation for family day care, at $294 per week—saving local families around $1,500 per annum compared to the national average;

the second lowest fees for long day care, at $317 a week—a saving of more than $1,000 per annum against the average; and

preschool fees less than half the national average, at $23 a week compared to an average of $49—again, saving families more than $1,000.

I also credit the commonwealth for continuing to provide specialist programs for those most in need, such as the Jobs Education Training Child Care Fee Assistance and Grandparent Childcare Benefit—the latter of which supports pensioner grandparents who are primary carers of their grandchildren by providing up to 50 hours of child care every week absolutely free.

The member for Waite's claim of $52,000 in expenses for two children being in care makes a lot of assumptions. He states that current costs are around $80 a day and then bases his $52,000 claim on costs of $100 a day. He then assumes that both children attend care all day of every weekday of every week throughout the year and that the family receives no rebates whatsoever. We need to bring some reality back to this debate.

The report on government services has vast amounts of data, and one particular table shows average attendance for South Australian children in long-day care is around 25 hours per week, less than three full days per week. Three days at $80 a day is $240 a week. If the family is making an average full-time earnings of around $72,000, they would receive around $100 in the income-tested childcare benefit. The childcare rebate would then cover half the remaining costs, leaving around $70 for the family to pay. This equates to around $3,500 per year for an average child, in an average family, attending for average hours. There will always be higher and lower figures, but calling for a select committee based on rubbery and extreme examples does not reflect well on those supporting this motion.

The member for Waite also wants the select committee to examine the impact of regulation, accreditation and other quality controls on the quality and costs of care, the impact of the workforce management and remuneration, and training requirements and capabilities. A national workforce review is being conducted this year that is examining the qualification requirements. There is also a South Australian component of this review that was recently completed by the Health and Community Services Board. The review examined current and future workforce requirements and strategies to ensure that we meet our training needs into the future.

In March this year I announced a program of 200 scholarships of up to $10,000 each so that childcare workers with a diploma qualification can upgrade their skills to a four-year degree qualification, and the commonwealth announced a $300 million grant program to increase the wages of qualified childcare workers, while restricting fee increases to families. South Australia's Skills For All program is also supporting low-cost and high-quality training for our childcare workforce. These are all practical measures that are being delivered right now.

The National Partnership on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care requires a COAG review to be conducted in 2014 and that will look at all of these issues. With regard to competitive neutrality between private and non-private providers, South Australia currently has a mix of government, for profit and not-for-profit providers. The majority for long day childcare services provided directly by the state government are targeted at small rural communities through our Rural Care program, where no other local provider is viable.

The federal government offers long day care sustainability assistance funding to sole providers who often operate in smaller regional and remote areas. In our larger regional centres and Adelaide there is a high degree of competition between non-government providers that drives innovation and keeps pressures on prices down. There are different business models and operating environments and they create a variety of outcomes; however, I note that no single business type dominates the local market, which reflects a relatively level playing field.

Finally, the motion calls for an investigation of options with existing funding to improve the choices for families, reduce costs and make more efficient use of investment funds. The commonwealth recently announced a $5 million pilot program to examine the provision of flexible services such as 24-hour long day care, extended out of hours school care and overnight family day care. This will initially be targeted at key workers, such as nurses and those in emergency services.

The government is not alone in objecting to this motion. The convenor of Australian Community Children's Services SA wrote to me on 24 January this year to state that we do not need a select committee. Unlike the motion before the house, the letter proposed specific improvements to the quality of care. Organisations such as this recognise that value is what you get for what you pay, not just how cheap you can make something.

Without responding to each and every one of the member for Waite's claims, I note that he harks back to the happy memories of unregulated child care in the pre-1972 era. By coincidence this is around the time we introduced such things as seatbelts and a long time before we stopped people smoking in cars with children. Both of these regulations faced opposition when they were introduced, but in hindsight they have been a wonderful benefit to children and the wider community. Just because it ain't broke, doesn't mean it can't be a lot better. Another point of concern is the member's claim that:

They are taking us down the pathway of transforming child care into education. The ship has tilted too far towards the educational outcomes and moved away from the basic needs of working mums and dads to have loving, safe, high-quality care for their kids.

Let's look at the example used by the member for Waite in his speech: the two children spending all day of every weekday of every week of the year in child care. We acknowledge, as the member for Waite does, that brain development is at its peak in the zero to five age bracket. What parent, who for whatever reason has to leave their children in the care of others for 50 to 60 hours every week, would not want that time to have an educational focus?

In closing, all the practical initiatives I have outlined that are addressing affordability, availability and, most importantly, quality are on the top of the continuing rollout of our state's 38 children's centres across South Australia.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:45): I generally support select committees, and I acknowledge the good intentions of the member for Waite, but in reading the terms of reference I find that they have an economic focus when I would like the focus to be on what is in the best interests of the children, what is the impact on the children, and what is best for families and the community. I think the fundamental issue is: do we need child care? I think some people have little choice; others make a choice. Some people choose to look after their children at home because they are in a position where they can do that, and that was my experience with my own children. My brother did the same: he took time off to look after their children, my nieces and nephew.

Not everyone can do that, and I accept that, but we have to be careful that we do not create a system that is purely driven by hard-nosed economics, in the sense that child care is so that people can go to work; that is fine, but sometimes it is for the convenience and the economic status of the parents. As I said, some people have no choice, but for many I think there is a choice and that some people choose to put children into child care simply because it means that they can have a more affluent lifestyle.

The minister touched on what I think is a critical issue: is child care about education or, as some people may put it in a negative context, is it simply babysitting? I think they are the sorts of questions we should be exploring in relation to whatever system we have—and when we talk about 'system' it sounds pretty impersonal because you are talking about vulnerable members of the community—young children. 'System' sounds cold and somewhat harsh, and to some extent that is reflected in the terms of reference, where the focus seems to be on economic drivers.

If there is a select committee—and it looks as though there will not be because the government will not support it—I would like to see it focus on the more fundamental issues: what care arrangements should there be for children; what are the best arrangements in the current climate, economic climate and otherwise; is the way child care is offered now serving the best interests of the children, families and the community at large; or is it primarily about economic factors for those who are involved in running or owning centres, or for those who may be the adult clients?

I believe the terms of reference need to be fundamentally restructured if we are to get a report that really zeroes in on fundamentals and does not simply look at what is an important issue, but to me it is not the only issue or the prime issue—that is, the economics that underlie the current childcare arrangements in this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Treloar.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT