Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the government’s Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care) Bill 2009, and to indicate to the chamber the coalition’s general support for the bill. The bill makes a range of amendments, some of those appear to be in response to problems which arose as a result of the recent and disturbing collapse of ABC Learning, and a number are what would be described as general housekeeping amendments to the existing legislation in A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

The bill makes changes to allow the final quarterly payment of the childcare tax rebate to be withheld until a parent’s taxable income is determined for that financial year. It will align the operation of the childcare rebate provisions with the childcare benefits provisions in the case of a deceased individual. This will mean that where an individual who has received childcare rebate payments dies, but their child in that instance continues to attend approved care, the childcare rebate payments for that child can continue to be received by another approved adult who takes over guardianship of the child in question. It will also allow for those people who have been assessed at a zero rate for the childcare benefit to request a review of their entitlements within two years of the year that they received the zero rating. Where a variation to the childcare benefit is made as a result of the review, an automatic review will be done in relation to the childcare rebate payments as well. The bill will also rename the childcare tax rebate as the childcare rebate, to reflect the fact that payment is now actually made as a quarterly payment through family assistance legislation rather than as a tax offset under taxation legislation.

Finally, the bill will impose civil penalties on childcare operators who breach their obligations in relation to when and how they notify their intention to cease operations. That is when childcare operators breach the rule that requires 30 days notice to be given before a centre can close. I want to spend a moment to focus on that amendment in particular. It was clear from the uncertainty and distress that was experienced by thousands of parents, carers, children and staff following the collapse of ABC Learning just how important this amendment is. The sudden closure of a childcare centre is more than just a business decision; it can mean unemployment for the centre’s workers, stress and work difficulties for both parents and carers, and of course instability for the children, who are disrupted in that process. All of that is made worse by ongoing uncertainty.

In the case of ABC Learning, for months many of the centres have been standing on the brink of closure with parents, carers and staff waiting for information, any information, in fact, that might tell them once and for all what was going to happen. After months of waiting, it is unacceptable for people in those circumstances to be told that a centre will close within days. A recent case of exactly this circumstance has been highlighted by my colleague the shadow minister for early childhood education, child care, women and youth, Mrs Mirabella, and I explored it myself in estimates. Mrs Mirabella was contacted by parents from the ABC Learning centre at Altona North in Victoria, which was one of those deemed unviable under the ABC Learning business model. It was also one of the centres controlled by the government appointed receivers, PPB, for which a buyer was being sought. The chronology is that on 15 April this year, the receivers announced that Altona North was one of the 210 former ABC Learning centres for which a buyer had been found. Then on 5 May, the Sydenham Preschool Trust was announced as the new operator. Three days later on 8 May, a new announcement informed parents that the centre would close as of 15 May, which gave them just seven days notice to make alternative care arrangements for their children. I explored this matter at estimates. Notwithstanding the explanations that were given, for parents placed in those circumstances it was really an unacceptable situation. Some families were quite clearly in a great degree of difficulty as a result of this decision.

In fact, in the wake of the collapse of ABC Learning, the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, has repeatedly said that childcare centres could not just close down overnight, leaving parents stranded and without any care for their children, precisely because the law requires centres to provide 30 days notice to the government that they will close. Clearly, in a circumstance such as this, this is a provision which has failed. The current bill will, we hope, strengthen it by imposing these civil penalties on centres that do not comply with the 30-day notice requirement.

As I have indicated, the coalition supports this amendment. But there is another area which we also believe deserves attention, and that is the need for a provision to ensure that childcare operators also provide 30 days notice to parents of children attending a centre which, for whatever reason, will cease to operate. A provision of that nature would go a long way to easing the burden on families affected by childcare centre closures.

I note that, in the discussions of such an amendment between the shadow minister and the then Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Development and Child Care, Ms McKew, the parliamentary secretary provided assurances that the department already had the power to specify the form and manner in which childcare service providers must give notification that they are ceasing operations. The then parliamentary secretary in fact said: ‘The department has a standardised notice of cessation form which will ensure parents receive at least 30 days notice.’ As a result of those assurances given by the parliamentary secretary, we do not intend to move an amendment on this matter, and we hope that the new minister in this area, Ms Ellis, honours the commitment that has been made.

There are a number of other issues in the childcare area where much was promised but in reality little has been delivered to date. The lack of enforcement of the requirement that childcare services provide at least 30 days notice before they close is an example for starters. In 2007, we had the much-vaunted announcement of the plan for a Labor government to build an additional 260 childcare centres around Australia. Notwithstanding extensive discussions at estimates in the last 18 months, not one has been completed. We have half-a-dozen or so in the planning stage, but, really, given the strength of the promise, we had expected to see more and better by now.

Of course, we had partial clarification on budget night in the ministerial statement on education, which said that the remaining—up to 222—early learning and childcare centres will be considered when the childcare market has settled and based on the experience of the priority centres. But—notwithstanding efforts to discern what it really means, in discussions with the minister and in estimates—that does not give us a great deal of clarity about where the commitment is going. We have also been pursuing questions about a lack of childcare vacancy data, and those questions are on the record in estimates as well.

So, despite these gaps, these holes, if you like, in the childcare policy area, we do support these amendments in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care) Bill 2009, and we do hope that it foreshadows a more effective and responsible approach by the government to child care in Australia. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Payne for her contribution and the support for the legislation. In reply I would only make one point: I think there has been enormous turmoil in the sector as a result of the collapse of ABC childcare services, and that has had a huge impact, I think, on planning in and management of the sector. I think that highlights the foolishness of allowing one provider to get such a share of the market over the last 10 years. An argument I used to have with Senator Newman when she was the minister and I was the shadow minister for this area was that, by allowing that market domination, when that company collapsed the impact on industry was huge. Particularly given that child care is almost wholly subsidised by Commonwealth government revenues in one form or another, I think it is important that that market structure be closely measured. But I do appreciate Senator Payne’s contribution and the support of the chamber for the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.