Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Education and Employment References Committee, I present the report on the delivery of quality and affordable early childhood education and care services, and the report on the immediate future of the childcare sector in Australia, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to thank the committee and the secretariat for managing these two references which we did together. I also want to thank the sector for presenting us with very good evidence. We received very solid evidence at three or four hearings a couple of months ago about quality childcare in this country. I thank everyone for their participation.

In my remarks today I would really like to focus on the importance of quality in early childhood education and care. That was probably a feature of the submissions we heard from the sector. Even the one or two operators in the sector who find complying with the new national quality frameworks onerous. Generally speaking, the national quality framework is all about quality and was very well received by the sector. The sector was very concerned to make sure that the reforms that have been put in place and the time frames going forward were absolutely kept in place. A number of concerns were raised about slowing those reforms down.

Quality was high on the agenda; especially the need for young children in early childhood education and care between the ages of newborn up to age six get the best-quality care possible. We know the academic research is there about brain development, particularly for children from birth to the age of three. That is when the most rapid brain development occurs. For children who are being educated and cared for outside of the home, it is absolutely paramount that there is this complete focus on quality, and that everything we do in education and care services has the wellbeing of children and the advancement of their development front and centre.

It is a bit of a report card really on the Labor government's achievements in early childhood education and care. So it was pleasing to hear that it was such a positive report card. As a former teacher I would say it was an A+. The sector absolutely and overwhelmingly endorsed Labor's national quality reforms. Some of those reforms are about achieving much more acceptable educator-to-child ratios. We have seen that being standardised across the country. We are still going through those reforms as I speak, but they are on track. Most of the reforms are now done, and we have the same standards applying across the country—as we would expect; we do not want different standards of educator-to-child ratios being permitted in different states. That is a real positive.

The early years quality framework which sets out the sorts of learning experiences and challenges that young children should be experiencing in the service was well received and complemented the work that quality centres are already providing. So we got a lot of positive feedback on that. Not only were services complimenting the former Labor government's child-centred approach; we also heard from the governing authority, ACECQA, who stressed in their submissions and their verbal evidence that the NQF was designed to realise these education and development outcomes for children—not just children to be supported by parents—and families, and also for Australia's long-term prosperity. We heard that over and over again from academics, service providers and associations. Dr Anne Kennedy, who is the National Secretary of the Australian Community Children's Services, commonly known as ACCS throughout the sector, went further by stating that:

… the COAG agreement … endorsing the national quality framework agenda is the most significant event in the history of education and care services in Australia.

Dr Kennedy then told us:

We are the first federated nation to achieve national reform on this scale.

This is a very strong endorsement by ACCS. As someone who, prior to becoming a senator, had a long-term involvement with early childhood, education and care in this country, I would echo those sentiments and views. What we have done in the early childhood education and care space is historic and it is absolutely a positive benefit for children, parents and our long-term economic viability.

It is a little sad—more than sad; it is critical for the current government to continue the reforms that are in the sector and not to be seduced by the minority of voices in the sector who are calling for the national quality reforms to be scaled back. We have seen some attacks on the child care benefit but we have a reference coming up on that, so I will reserve my comments until later.

The opposition to Labor's reforms was weak and unrepresentative. Those criticisms mainly came from a submission by the Australian Childcare Alliance. They did not quote academic research but compiled their views from feedback from a member's survey, and that survey in and of itself attracted a very low response rate—just eight per cent of their reported membership.

They say they are the major alliance for long day-care services across the country but, even so, whilst their comments were negative, particularly in relation to children under the age of two and the requirement to have teachers in place, their submission only represented six per cent of the total number of long day-care services in Australia. To put that into perspective, there are more than 6,000 long day-care services in Australia, and so for the government to be hoodwinked by an association which at best has comment from just six per cent of the sector is quite erroneous.

The vast bulk of the sector, large providers—in fact, the largest provider in Australia, Goodstart, commended the reforms, and their submission is a worthy one. It is well researched. It relies on academic studies, and Goodstart are in a very strong position, because they have services in every single state and territory across the country, to be making comments about the implementation of the National Quality Framework.

Let's not forget that Goodstart picked up the failed ABC centres, many of which were performing extremely badly. Goodstart have had to put a lot of funds into those services to make them the quality services that they are today. Their submission was an absolute endorsement of quality education and care in Australia and they urged the federal government to keep going with that.

We did hear of services that are struggling—for example, in Western Australia we heard from a rural centre in Merredin, struggling to attract teachers. But that centre also seemed to be unaware of the funding that the Western Australian government has made available through its Royalties for Regions which they could seek. Far be it for me to give a compliment to the Barnett government, but that funding is generous and available to regional centres. We will be talking to that Merredin service about what it needs to do to attract the sort of funding that will support it.

There is clearly a need for government to support regional centres more than it currently does. It is not appropriate to say, 'Just because you are a regional service, you can't compete for the services of a teacher in the way that a government primary school or a private school can' and that we somehow lessen that regulation. That is doing a disservice to children, and we do not want to see that. There is a little more work to be done.

I urge the government not to fold back those reforms that are underway. That is not the view of the sector, and I commend the report to the chamber.