Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have just heard another mad free marketeer view of another area of social policy—leave it all to the market, nothing else can be done. This government is so hypocritical in the area of child care. The government obviously collects data in aged care; why can it not have some understanding of what the problems are in all parts of Australia? To make the remarks about the member for Sydney, in the divisive kind of way that the two previous speakers on the government side have, is quite unnecessary on what should be a matter of non-partisan concern. The kinds of problems identified by the member for Chisholm and the member for Sydney exist all across Australia. These problems exist because of the non-integration by this government of its policies on child care.

For instance, as the member for Chisholm said, Australia has a very large non-partisan immigration policy. We have thousands of people here who are first generation immigrants—they do not have their grandparents coming in with them. You have this problem all over the country of first generation immigrants, which the government do not seem to know anything about. When grandparents who want to come in to help with their children’s businesses are being kept out under all circumstances, from all kinds of ethnic groups, how can these grandparents possibly assist with child care?

The reason we are having this debate is that the government’s policy in this area is a shambles. We do not have to take my word for it. The member for Lindsay is leaving the chamber, but only last month the member for Lindsay, a former minister and a protege of the Prime Minister, gave an honest assessment of the mess that this government’s policy is in. What did she say? To quote from the Age of 15 January, she said that the Treasurer should spend the government’s surplus by fixing the child-care crisis rather than spending it on tax cuts. She said:

Ministers should also stop doing their own thing and work together to respond to the escalating problem.

It is interesting that, despite her unnecessary and divisive attack on the member for Sydney, the member for Lindsay says we have a child-care crisis and an ‘escalating problem’ with child care. Only last year the former Minister for Human Services told us that we had no problem at all. She told us that in my electorate. The honourable member for Lindsay also said:

We shouldn’t have the Treasurer with a 30 per cent rebate solution, the Employment Minister saying women should negotiate for child care in their workplaces and Senator Patterson saying other things.

She also said it was time that the education minister should start taking an interest in preschools. I think we all agree with that. The honourable member for Lindsay also said that the only way to fix the growing problem of a national child-care waiting list of 175,000 and skyrocketing prices was to dismantle the current system and take a totally fresh look. This is addressed partly by what the honourable member for Sydney has proposed with her three ways of dealing with the rebate for out-of-pocket expenses so that mothers—and fathers, I might point out to the member for Lindsay—would be able to get the rebate back rather than having to wait two years.

I commend the members for Lindsay, Chisholm and Sydney for their honesty in acknowledging that, after 10 years of the Howard government, child-care policy is a disaster. It is a disaster in my electorate. I have said here several times that child-care services in our capital cities are hopelessly inadequate. Inner city areas like my electorate, which runs from Port Melbourne to Caulfield, are now experiencing rapid growth as families with young children are moving back into these areas. These families are servicing mortgages in an area where the cost of land and housing is high. The City of Port Phillip has a waiting list of nearly 2,000 children who cannot find places, and parents are therefore unable to participate in the workforce. What is the economic cost of that, I ask, to all the free marketeers and economic rationalists on the other side?

In child care, as in other areas, this government has a blind faith in market forces and the private sector. That may be because some of the big participants in this sector are big donors to this government. But in my electorate the private sector has not met the demand for child care. I do not think that the people on the other side have ever heard of community child care. This opposition proposed at the last election that there should be some capital subsidies given to community child care all across Australia to subsidise the many honest and honourable people who give their time not-for-profit to work in this area.

I am in favour of the private sector providing services which it is well equipped to provide. I do not argue that the state should do everything. But there is clear evidence of market failure in child-care provision in inner urban areas—not just in Sydney but all over the country. The member for Chisholm’s electorate is not inner city; she is in Box Hill. It appears that it is simply not profitable for private sector providers to offer quality child care to working families at an affordable price in some areas. This is certainly what people in my electorate are telling me. In these circumstances community owned services are the best way to solve the waiting list issue. Increased capital funding for community owned child-care services will increase places in the areas where they are most needed. Of course, all levels of government should fund the establishment of community owned services. In my electorate local government is carrying most of the burden. It is being assisted by the state government, as the member for Chisholm said, with this pilot program for identifying child-care needs. This is the kind of cooperation we need, not just one-sided rhetoric from the government. (Time expired)

See this speech in context