Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
Chapter 4 - Impact of Changes to Child Care Funding on Child Care Services
Introduction
4.1 The state of the child care industry at the present time is complex
and dynamic. The changes to child care funding arrangements introduced
by the Commonwealth Government in 1996-97 and 1997-98 have impacted, to
varying degrees, on all those connected to the industry: the providers
of child care services, the families and children using those services
and child care workers. Some changes are still in their earliest stages
of implementation, particularly in the out of school hours care area,
while in the case of others, services and families are still adjusting
and final outcomes are not clear. A further consideration is the difficulty
in analysing changes in isolation – some of the changes have flow
on effects, for example, changes introduced which affect parents' ability
to access and pay for child care also impact on other variables such as
utilisation rates.
4.2 At the same time, structural problems within the sector and demographic
changes are also emerging as significant factors influencing the child
care industry. For example, the over supply of child care places in some
areas is impacting on the viability of some services and the decrease
in the growth rate of the number of children in the age group 0-4 years
in Australia will influence the future demand for child care services.
The Government's reforms are therefore just one of the factors leading
to change in the child care industry.
4.3 While the Committee received a great deal of anecdotal evidence about
impacts on services and families, there have been difficulties in gaining
up-to-date statistical information which accurately reflects the state
of the industry at the moment. Part of the problem is the dynamic nature
of the industry at present, and part is due to the complexity of data
collection and long delays in analysing data. The problems of data collection
have been discussed in Chapter 3, however, the Committee notes that this
did hamper its ability to assess the anecdotal evidence received.
Changes involving long day care centres
4.4 The first of the changes discussed, the abolition of the operational
subsidy, applies only to community-based centres. The other changes –
the 50 hour limit on Childcare Assistance and the 20 hour limit on non-work
related care – apply to both community-based and private centres.
The factors that the Committee has considered in measuring the impact
of these changes include fee changes, utilisation rates of care, closures
of centres and the quality of services delivered.
Operational subsidies
4.5 In the 1996-97 Budget it was announced that operational subsidies
for community-based long day care centres (excluding occasional care,
family day care, multifunctional and multifunctional Aboriginal children's
services) would cease from 1 July 1997. The Department of Family and Community
Services (DFCS) stated that the abolition of the operational subsidy for
community-based centres `removes a significant inequity for families using
private rather than community based child care'. The removal of the operational
subsidy was also aimed at encouraging community centres to be more efficient
and cost competitive with private sector centres.
4.6 The Department stated that the operational subsidy equated to approximately
$20 per place per week for community-based services. However, it noted
that:
community based services did not pass on the benefit of the subsidy
to families through lower fees. Prior to the [1996-97] Budget announcement
about the removal of subsidies, community based centre fees were only
about $2 lower per week than private centres ($148 in community based
centres and $150 in private centres – 1996 Child Care Administrative
data). Since the subsidy has been removed, community based services
have on average increased their fees by about $14 per week compared
to private service fee increases of about $2 per week. [1]
4.7 The Department also noted that the subsidy had never been paid to
private services `even though private centres currently provide 74% of
all centre based care, catering for more than 206,000 families'. [2]
4.8 In recognition that the loss of the operational subsidy required
the community-based centres to make significant adjustments to their operations,
$8.3 million has been allocated over two years to help community-based
centres purchase financial and management advice. A further $11.5 million
is also available over three years to assist centres with capital funding
to upgrade and amalgamate. The Department commented that this assistance
should minimise the need for centres to increase their fees. Further,
funds for minor capital upgrading could result in an increase in licensed
capacity and assist with the viability of the services.
4.9 The Department noted that consultants' reports on restructuring of
community-based services indicated that generally it was possible for
services, in almost all cases, to increase efficiencies without the need
to pass on in full to parents the impact of the removal of the operational
subsidy. It was noted that many community-based centres used the operational
subsidy to provide services which were additional to quality and accreditation
requirements. The Department submitted that the consultants' reports `acknowledge
that many community based services would need to increase fees to increase
income and hence viability, either through a straight fee increase' or
through other means. [3] The following recommendations
to improve efficiency of centres were made by consultants:
- bring staffing in line with State licensing requirements where services
were operating on a higher staff/child ratio;
- improve management practices to regularly evaluate utilisation rates,
staff/child ratios and service procedures;
- develop marketing strategies as a priority in order to maintain and
improve utilisation rates across the board;
- expand the use of computerised management systems to increase efficiency;
and
- provide nappy services, and perhaps meals, on a cost recovery basis.
4.10 Evidence received from community-based organisations indicated that
they did not consider that there was room within services for increased
efficiencies to make up for the loss of the operational subsidy. The NSW
Children's Services Forum stated that:
The results of business consultations with centres have consistently
shown that the margins in services are very low – they are already
lean operations with little room to move when substantial funding is
taken away from them. Many were advised that their services were not
viable or that major changes to service delivery would need to be made.
[4]
Concerns were expressed that there were few significant savings that
could be made without significantly reducing the quality of care that
was provided. [5] As staffing costs account
for up to 85 per cent of centre costs, this was the main area of
cost savings. However, reductions in staffing levels in particular were
not seen as increases in efficiency rather as contributing to a decline
in standards and quality. [6]
4.11 Witnesses indicated that generally fee increases have been the means
sought by most centres to make up the loss of the operational subsidy
and to maintain the level of services previously provided. Access to financial
and management advice had not been enough to contain increases in fees.
These increases have occurred across the community-based sector, with
increases ranging from relatively small amounts to substantial increases
in the range of $30 per week. [7]
4.12 Some sponsoring bodies indicated that the increased fees did not
cover the full impact of the loss of subsidies but the sponsoring body
had agreed to carry the short-fall in recognition that further increases
would result in low-income families being unable to access care. [8]
Other services indicated that increases in fees were a `last resort' as
they were aware that many families could not afford the additional cost,
however `the only way to recoup the loss of subsidies and grants is to
pass on the shortfall to parents by way of substantially increased fees'.
[9]
4.13 Other means of overcoming the loss of the subsidy included:
- reduction of staffing: centres indicated that staff
additional to regulations were being reduced, less qualified and experience
staff were being employed, support staff such as cleaners, clerical
assistants, floaters, domestics and cooks are employed for less time
or no longer employed;
- increased contact time for director: many centres indicated
that the directors of centres were now used `on the floor' to fill gaps
and to meet staff/child ratios;
- changing the age mix: centres are combining age groups of children
previously cared for separately;
- reduction in services: some centres indicated that they no
longer provided cooked meals and/or nappy services;
- reduction in other expenditure: centres had reduced spending
on maintenance and repairs and were purchasing less equipment and consumables
for children; [10] and
- closure of baby places: Fairfield City Council indicated that
it had closed some baby care places as a cost saving initiative. [11]
4.14 Some witnesses noted that an added difficulty for community-based
long day services to absorb the abolition of the operational subsidy was
size of the services. Many community-based services are for 35 children
or less and these small services find it difficult to implement the same
cost savings as larger private centres: costs are spread over a smaller
number of children and economies of scale are unavailable to small centres.
Small centres thus have difficulty in keeping their fees at an affordable
level without the operational subsidy.
4.15 It was stated that the proliferation of small community-based centres
was the result of Federal Government policy which had kept the growth
of the community sector to a minimum over the past five years. As well,
since the 1970s capital funds have been provided for services of less
than 50 places. [12] The Government in allocating
capital funds had set the number of places, the mix of staff and balance
of enrolment. The community sector had not had an open hand in deciding
where centres would be established or in determining the way in which
centres operated and as a result `had been left with a legacy of buildings,
child care license and existing staff that would not have been prudently
adopted if they were set up under the present operating environment'.
[13] In Victoria, for example, less than 10 per
cent of centres are 50 places or more, 33 per cent are less
than 30 places while the remaining are between 35 and 40 places. [14]
NACBCS concluded that the sector was `intrinsically disadvantaged by government
policy'. [15]
4.16 Many witnesses representing the community-based sector supported
the reinstatement of the operational subsidy. While giving evidence, the
ACTU representatives stated that ACTU policy supported the reintroduction
of the operational subsidy. [16] Subsequently
the Committee received clarification of this statement. ACTU policy states:
We endorse the continuation of the not for profit community owned sector
as an integral provider of children's services, and call for funding
arrangements to ensure its on-going viability.
It was noted that `the re-introduction of the operational subsidy would
be of great assistance in achieving this policy objective of the ACTU
and as such is supported'. [17]
4.17 However, the abolition of the subsidy was supported by some witnesses
on equity grounds. The Shop Distributive & Allied Employees' Association
(SDA) stated that:
We support the decision of the government to remove the operational
subsidy because that subsidy is inherently inequitable and unfair. It
benefits some families who have the luck to have their children in community
child-care centres irrespective of the income that the parents might
happen to have. Those families that do not have that luck to have their
children in community centres do not get the benefit of the operation
of a subsidy, irrespective of the income of the families concerned.
[18]
In support of the abolition of the operational subsidy to community-based
centres, the SDA also noted that:
- private centres, which had never received the subsidy, provide more
care than do community-based centres;
- the private sector provides services to a greater proportion of low
income families than the community sector with 44 per cent of families
in the private sector (96,000) receiving the maximum Childcare Assistance
compared with 39 per cent in the community sector (27,000);
- the private sector provides care for double the number of children
of sole parents compared with the community sector, while the children
of working sole parents utilise 20,500 places in the private sector
and 10,900 places in the community sector; for non-working parents the
corresponding figures are 6,700 places in the private sector and 2,800
places in the community sector; and
- community centres are largely concentrated in inner or established
urban areas, and are less likely to be widely available in outer suburbs
or rural locations. [19]
4.18 While the SDA concluded that there was no justification for differential
government assistance to services in the child care sector and that the
abolition of the subsidy removed a significant inequity in government
assistance, it went on to note that `services previously receiving operational
subsidy must be able to operate in the same business environment, on the
same basis, as private services, that is, they must be able to access
the same tax advantages and reinvestment opportunities as private services'.
[20]
4.19 Other witnesses also disputed that the abolition of the operational
subsidy would put the community-based sector on an equal footing with
the private sector. NACBCS stated that:
It is not a level playing field at the moment while you have community
services with too small numbers, some of them in buildings that are
not adequate. They cannot extend their buildings to have a greater number
of children because a community management model is parent run and you
cannot get loans from banks to upgrade yourself.
There are some real problems for the community owned sector in getting
onto that level playing field which the government intended to create.
There are some real barriers and hurdles. We believe that the government
should look at how it can help some of those services become viable
community enterprises. [21]
4.20 It was also noted by witnesses that the management structure of
community-based centres was a cost additional to the general operating
costs of running a business. A paid coordinator supports this management
structure and this is `an additional burden placed on community owned
services that private operators do not accrue. The operational subsidy
contributed to meeting this cost.' [22] It
was estimated that the cost of the management structure was $10,000 per
year. [23]
4.21 Many submissions were received supporting the community-based sector
and pointing to the benefits of maintaining the sector and to its history
of supporting low income families and children with special needs. It
was stated that community-based centres provided care for a high proportion
of babies (38.6 per cent compared to 28.3 per cent for private
centres), children with special needs, such as those from non-English
speaking backgrounds (14.2 per cent compared to 9.2 per cent)
and children with disabilities (3.1 per cent compared to 2.1 per
cent) and children at risk (0.7 per cent compared to 0.3 per
cent). [24] In rural and remote Australia,
there are over twice as many community-based long day care places as there
are private-for-profit places. [25] Uniting
Community Services Australia noted:
The committee is no doubt aware that the churches and other community
groups are often the only organisations willing to provide child care
services in areas which are in some way disadvantaged. Private for profit
centres are rarely found in outer suburbs with a high proportion of
low income families, remote localities which lack even basic community
infrastructure and regions whose socioeconomic profile is characterised
by a high proportion of single-parent families, high levels of unemployment
and a high incidence of poverty and social problems. Ongoing, affordable
child care in these areas is critical to the support of Australian families,
and community based child care is a cornerstone of that support. [26]
4.22 The City of Yarra noted that community-based centres had traditionally
supported families experiencing difficulties or requiring additional assistance
and support and have been a point of referral for government and/or community
agencies. The City noted that `current financial pressures make it difficult
for the community sector to continue to support such families. Timely
and regular fee payments are unlikely to be a high priority for families
under such stresses, however are critical to the ongoing viability of
the services.' [27]
4.23 The SDA noted that the community-based sector had made a significant
contribution to the overall development of the Australian child care system
and that this contribution must be recognised. Further, there is inherent
value in maintaining the sector and that the Government `should ensure
that this is in fact achieved'. [28]
4.24 NACBCS stated that:
We also believe that community ownership is intrinsically valuable
for our society in contributing to the development of social capital,
social infrastructure and assisting families bond together as part of
the community fabric. We are concerned about the loss of that community
owned sector. We think it is critically important to the local neighbourhoods
and to the Australian community as a whole. [29]
4.25 The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission noted there were
benefits of the community-based model of child care. The Commission stated
that it encouraged active parent participation which puts in place appropriate
checks and balances and is one way of ensuring that high quality services
are provided; promoted the notion of shared parenting; and it provided
an important source of social capital in many communities. [30]
The Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS) also pointed to the benefits
of the community model and concluded that:
We are also mindful of the fact that maintenance of at least a 25%
share of the market for community based services is essential if we
are to retain a real commitment to quality improvement in children's
services. Community based services have set the benchmarks in this area
and have led the way in both accreditation and licensing regulations
to ensure the best possible standards of care for children, often against
strong resistance from some parts of the private sector. [31]
4.26 In order to maintain the viability of the community-based sector
a number of suggestions were put to the Committee. These ranged from the
reinstatement of the operational subsidy to the provision of grants for
specific resources, greater transitional funding and more targeted funding
for centres operating in low income or disadvantaged areas. (The needs
of families from low income and/or disadvantaged areas are discussed in
Chapter 5.) Other witnesses suggested that new funding models be developed.
[32]
4.27 One model already being trialed was presented by the City of Darebin.
This model was designed not only to assist centres to adapt in the current
period of change, particularly changes in utilisation rates, but also
to ensure the future viability of centres. It is based on the community
development approach rather than the traditional service delivery model.
Cost cutting is not the overriding aim, rather a better and more equitable
sharing of resources is intended.
4.28 Community-based centres operating in Council owned facilities have
a primary role in the model, however, other community-based services and
the private sector have a secondary or associated role. The model incorporates
a `peak group' representing all children's services including family day
care and kindergartens. This representation recognises that utilisation
and the location or close proximity to other services determines viability.
Training is provided for children's services workers and, most importantly,
for members of committees of management. The Council plays a significant
role in relation to planning, training, central enrolment and monitoring.
It was indicated that Council subsidy for training and other costs was
in excess of $300,000. [33]
Conclusion
4.29 The Committee has considered the evidence before it and concludes
that the operational subsidy should be not reintroduced for community-based
long day care centres. The evidence is clear that the subsidy benefited
only a small proportion of those families, be those low, middle or high
income families, who were able to access community-based care. Those families
using private long day centres, the majority of child care users, did
not benefit from the operational subsidy. Therefore, the reintroduction
of the operational subsidy cannot be supported on equity grounds.
4.30 However, the Committee supports the concept of the `mixed economy'
model for the child care sector. It considers that both community-based
services and private-for-profit services have a valuable role to play
in the provision of child care in Australia. The community-based sector
and private sectors provide alternative models for the management of child
care services and provide families with choice of care and choice in level
of participation in the provision of services for their children. The
Committee also notes that the community-based sector makes an important
contribution to the social capital and infrastructure of communities.
Further, the Committee considers that the growth of one type of service
provider to the detriment of the other would not be a positive outcome
for the industry. The emergence of one provider type to act in a monopoly
position may lead to price increases and adversely impact on families
and children.
4.31 The maintenance of the mixed economy model requires that both the
community-based and private services are encouraged and supported. At
the present time, the community-based sector is not only dealing with
the loss of the operational subsidy but also facing structural problems,
such as the proliferation of small centres and the unregulated growth
of the private sector. Services are also facing problems associated with
falling utilisation rates and increasing fees.
4.32 While many centres have attempted to improve efficiency through
cost-cutting and other measures, community-based centres are faced with
additional costs that private operators do not have. In particular, community-based
centres must meet the cost of running committees of management. Community-based
centres must also undertake investment in computerised management facilities
to ensure efficient operations. The Committee considers that recognition
should be given to the extra costs imposed by the community-based model
on service providers.
4.33 Although $8.3 million has been allocated over the next two years
to assist centres with restructuring, the Committee considers that further
direct support for community-based long day care centres is required to
assist these centres to maintain viability. Many community-based centres
will have to undertake major changes to remain viable: to amalgamate or
co-locate or extend existing facilities. The capital costs of either of
these choices may be beyond the financial means of many centres and government
assistance should be provided to enable them to undertake restructuring.
4.34 In providing such assistance the Committee is mindful that careful
planning must be undertaken to ensure that informed decisions are made
that will enable community-based centres to remain viable in the future
and that supply and demand considerations within the local areas are taken
into account. While the new National Planning System (see paras 2.43,
4.78) will go some way towards this, the Committee considers that models
such as that established by the City of Darebin may provide an effective
means of ensuring efficient delivery of child care services. The model
not only incorporates community-based and private sector services, but
also it recognises the unique position of local government in balancing
the needs within communities by maintaining and enhancing the role of
local government.
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the Government support
the `mixed economy' model, whereby both community-based and private-for-profit
services play a valuable role in the provision of child care, by encouraging
both services and especially ensuring that community-based services continue
as viable service providers.
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that to ensure the continuing
viability of community-based services:
- a one-off grant be provided to community-based centres in recognition
of the additional costs associated with supporting committees of management
and the need to upgrade management facilities to improve efficiency;
- consideration should be given to expanding funding for restructuring
within the community-based sector; and
- funding be provided to develop innovative models of child care
based on the community development approach.
50 hour limit
4.35 From 1 April 1997, a limit to Childcare Assistance of 50 hours
per week per child was introduced. The Department noted that Childcare
Assistance is calculated on the number of hours of care paid for, not
the number of hours used. The Commonwealth introduced the 50 hour
limit on Childcare Assistance for work related care to address the issue
of payment for care not actually used. However, working families who can
show that they have a genuine need for in excess of 50 hours of care
per child can be exempted from this limit. The Minister for Family Services
stated that `this limit reflects the view of the government that it is
not reasonable for the community to support payment of care for more than
50 hours per week, unless it is actually being used for work related
purposes'. [34] The Minister went on to note
that `any financial impact on centres and individuals from the 50 hours
measure depends solely on the charging practices of individual services'.
[35]
4.36 The Department stated that under charging practices in the sector,
many families are increasingly paying for care they do not use. For example,
a family who uses child care for six hours a day may well be charged a
full day fee, that is for an average of 10 hours. The Department
indicated that at the time of the announcement of this change, only 2 per
cent of families actually used more than 50 hours of care while charging
practices of services resulted in approximately 12 per cent of families
who receive Childcare Assistance paying for more than 50 hours of
care. Approximately 25,000 families pay for more than 50 hours of
child care per week but use less. The average number of hours of care
per child per week was 26 hours. The imposition of the 50 hour
limit was designed to encourage centres to reform their charging practices
to better match fees to hours used. As a result of the change, the number
of families paying more than 50 hours while using less had fallen
to 6 per cent while operating hours of services had remained constant.
The Department estimated that current practices still cost the Commonwealth
approximately $90 million annually. [36]
4.37 The Department indicated that the Government had announced its intention
to review centres' charging practices in consultation with the child care
industry and families. This is to be undertaken by the Child Care Advisory
Council. The establishment of the Council was announced in March 1998.
The Council is to provide advice on strategic policy directions related
to child care, research and reform of the Government's child care responsibilities.
In doing so it is to have primary focus on improved outcomes for families
and implications for industry and government.
4.38 Both the community-based sector and private-for-profit sector raised
concerns about the introduction of the 50 hour limit. It was suggested
that the imposition of the 50 hour limit did not reflect the way in which
child care was used and that the hours of opening reflected the needs
of the community. At a centre not every child is in care for the same
50 hours a week or the same 10 hours per day. Centres have to
open early and close late to accommodate parent's work arrangements. Providers
asserted that the current charging practices reflect this demand for extended
hours as it is necessary to cover the overhead costs associated with opening
for a certain number of hours per day, which for some services was 11
or 12 hours per day. [37] It was indicated
that little could be done to decrease costs during periods of low utilisation,
usually the beginning and the end of the day, as state regulations relating
to staffing required minimum numbers of staff to be on duty. [38]
4.39 To cover the overhead costs of extended hours of opening, services
cross subsidise `in order to share the high cost of providing care for
the few families who need care at the very beginning and very end of the
day. If services were to charge only those families the operational costs
to provide this care the families would be unable to afford care and services
would be unable to offer these extended hours.' [39]
4.40 The Multicultural Childcare Unit stated:
Many parents from culturally diverse backgrounds work in factories
and need the care early in the morning. They need the care at 6.30.
They must be at work by 7 o'clock. At the same time there are many parents
in an office position and working in shops and offices that need the
care later in the day. What I see happening is that the cost of early
morning care needs to be covered by spreading the cost out over the
whole day. The point I wish to make is that people needing the care
in the early hours of the morning, when the centre is making a loss,
cannot afford to pay the full cost of that care. They are the least
able to do that. [40]
4.41 It was also stated that families who did not use a full week of
care were little affected by the change. However, those who used five
days of care faced increased costs. As the change fell most heavily on
those who worked five-days per week some witnesses commented that the
change was inequitable by penalising a five-day a week worker. [41]
Evidence was also received that indicated that parents had responded to
the limit by reducing the number of days a child was in care, usually
a reduction from five days to four, and utilising informal care for the
remaining time. [42] This change in care patterns
impacted on utilisation rates of centres and affected the viability of
centres.
4.42 In evidence it was suggested that some centres had decreased opening
hours to accommodate the 50 hour limit but `this has caused significant
distress to some working parents and resulted in some loss of existing
and prospective enrolments'. [43]
4.43 On the question of payment of Childcare Assistance based on hours
used, it was noted by the Child Care Industry Association of Queensland
that Childcare Assistance is calculated on $2.30 per hour which, the Association
asserted, was a very low rate. The Association stated that if there was
a move to payment on hours used and hours booked, a totally different
rebatable hourly fee structure would have to be developed or child care
would become unaffordable. [44] The NSW Children's
Services Forum concluded that the hours used by parents could not be the
sole determinant for the cost of the service. [45]
Conclusion
4.44 The views received concerning the 50 hour limit reflect both
the competing interests over the question of child care funding and the
complexity of the situation within the industry. First, the Commonwealth
has imposed a 50 hour limit on Childcare Assistance as a means of
ensuring that assistance is provided for care that is actually used and
encouraging providers to set their fee schedules so that families are
not financially disadvantaged by the imposition of the limit.
4.45 Secondly, providers of services argue that they must meet the demands
of the community which requires them to open for more than 50 hours
per week. By doing so, providers incur costs which cannot to any significant
degree be decreased because of licensing regulations, particularly those
concerning staff/child ratios, and staffing considerations such as the
employment of casual staff rather than permanent full-time staff which
may compromise quality of care.
4.46 Thirdly, while evidence was received that many centres provide session
rates for care which allow families to access only the care that they
require, there appears to be a lack of flexibility in fee structures that
allows fees paid to more accurately reflect hours used. Families are financially
disadvantaged in this situation. Anecdotal evidence received suggests
that this is contributing to decisions to decrease the days of care or
change work patterns or use informal care for part of a week.
4.47 The Committee considers that it is appropriate that limits should
be placed on access to assistance that goes to unused care. Further, those
families who genuinely are in need of more than 50 hours of care are able
to apply for an exemption to the limit.
4.48 However, the Committee also considers that finding a mechanism which
meets the Government's aim of reducing the proportion of assistance paid
for unused care and reflects centres' charging practices that are imposed
because of community demands for extended hours of opening, regulatory
restrictions and economic viability constitutes a significant problem
and should be addressed.
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the review of centres'
charging practices referred to the Child Care Advisory Council be conducted
as a matter of priority.
20 hour limit
4.49 From 27 April 1998, a limit of 20 hours per week was applied
to access to Childcare Assistance for each child utilising child care
for non-work related purposes. The then Minister for Family Services,
the Hon J Moylan, MP, stated that:
This measure ensures Commonwealth funds are more efficiently targeted
to the primary objective of the program, that is, work related care.
Work related care is defined as care required by families where both
parents are or the single parent is working, looking for work, studying
or training. It includes families where one parent is working and the
other, because of a disability, is unable to have work related commitments
or care for their child or children. There will also be exemptions for
children at risk of neglect or abuse, for operators where they are the
sole provider of care in an area and for certain service types including
occasional care services and rural multifunctional services. [46]
4.50 The amount of care used for non-work related purposes in long day
care centres varies between States and Territories. Preliminary results
of the 1997 Census of Child Care indicated that Queensland had the highest
proportion of children in care for non-work related purposes.
Table 4.1: Proportion of attendance hours used for work related and
non-work related care in long day care, 1997*
| % total hours |
NSW |
VIC |
QLD |
SA |
WA |
TAS |
NT |
ACT |
AUST |
| Work related |
86% |
93% |
84% |
92% |
89% |
91% |
95% |
96% |
88% |
| Non-work related |
14% |
7% |
16% |
8% |
11% |
9% |
5% |
4% |
12% |
*Preliminary results from 1997 Census of Child Care Services
Source: Budget Estimates 1998-99, Answer to Senate Question on
Notice 201, DHFS.
4.51 The Department indicated that the introduction of the 20 hour
limit will improve access to families who need care for either work related
or non-work related needs by freeing up 17,000 additional child care places.
The Department also stated that it should encourage operators to establish
new services in areas of work-related demand. Consultations with the child
care industry prior to the 1997 Budget showed that the vast majority of
working and non-working families approved of a limit on non-work related
care, with 70 per cent of families approving a limit of up to 20 hours.
[47]
4.52 Evidence received indicated that in some sections of the child care
industry the need for a limit to access to child care by non-working parents
was recognised and that the 20 hours per week was a more realistic
and acceptable proposal than the recommendations made by EPAC of a cap
of 416 hours per year per child. [48] ACOSS
also stated that the limit was not unreasonable, especially as there are
exemptions for children at risk, children with disabilities and their
siblings and children who have one or both parents studying. [49]
4.53 However, some saw the 20 hour limit as `unfair and unwise',
as a `bureaucratic decision' made without consultation with the industry
which severely disadvantaged those centres which opened for more than
ten hours per day. [50] It was suggested that
the limit will have an adverse impact on the viability of centres. [51]
Further, that `loss of these children due to the 20 hour restriction
adds to the cost for working families as centres will need extra finances
to remain viable'. [52] It was also stated
that loss of staff numbers throughout the industry will be considerable
with the introduction of the 20 hour limit.
4.54 Some concern was expressed that special needs and disadvantaged
families may be adversely affected by this change. [53]
For example, the NSW Government indicated that one NSW centre had a large
intake of children of newly arrived migrants who used child care as an
opportunity for their young children to gain language skills, interaction
in the community and cultural skills. However, these children were being
withdrawn from the centre, in part, because of the imposition of the 20 hour
limit. [54] A further matter of concern was
that rules for increased access and the payment of fees for disadvantaged
children and those at risk is unclear. [55]
It was also suggested that many children who benefited from attending
formal child care would be disadvantaged:
…where there is a single parent, or where only one parent works,
[there is] the opportunity to enjoy a quality early childhood developmental
program in a long day care setting with their peers. Many of these children
in our area come from lower socioeconomic families, where parents do
not have either the knowledge or the money to provide this start for
their children. [56]
The needs of disadvantaged children are discussed further in Chapter
5 of this report.
4.55 An option put to the Committee was that the limit should be two
days of care to recognise that many child care centres are open for 12 hour
days. It was also stated that a two day limit would also `take into account
the way services cross subsidise in order to make child care affordable
and accessible to all families'. [57] Further,
such a change may be cost neutral as:
a centre open 8 hours per day could only claim 16 hours per
week so therefore the government would save this 4 hours, whereby
a centre is open for 11 hours per day would use the total of 22 hours
per week. When taken overall, this would prove to be cost neutral but
the centres would be able to offer parents two days care at a more affordable
rate. [58]
4.56 In response to questions during the June 1998 Estimates hearings,
the Department stated that the 20 hour limit did not apply only to
long day care centres which charged on a daily basis: it applied also
to family day care which charges on an hourly basis, to long day care
which charged on a session basis and to parents who used care sporadically.
To change to two days would be helpful to some services but would be almost
impossible in other contexts, while giving an option of either two days
or 20 hours would lead to some types of services being treated differently.
[59]
Conclusion
4.57 The Committee considers that the 20 hour limit is adequate
to meet the needs of families for non-work related care. Provisions are
in place to exempt families in crisis situations and families with a child
who has a disability from the limit. The concerns raised about the needs
of disadvantaged children are discussed in Chapter 5.
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the 20 hour limit
continue, providing that the current provisions to exempt families in
crisis situations and families with a child who has a disability from
the limit remain in place.
Indicators of the impact of changes on long day care centres
4.58 Many witnesses indicated that the major impact of the changes on
the child care industry has been to the viability of the industry. Witnesses
pointed to a number of issues as evidence of adverse outcomes of the changes
which were now compromising viability: fee increases as a direct result
of the changes at a time when changes to the amount of assistance offered
to families has decreased; the flow-on effect of fee increases on utilisation
rates; and cost cutting, particularly in the area of staffing, which has
impacted on quality and variety of services offered.
Increases in fees
4.59 The Department indicated that from 1991 to 1996 fee increases have
been consistent for both private and community-based services. However,
the preliminary 1997 Child Care Census data showed that fee increases
for community-based service had increased significantly more than for
private services, 9 per cent compared to 1 per cent. The average
weekly long day care fee in community-based centres is now $163 per week
compared with $157 per week in private centres. [60]
4.60 Most services also charge daily attendance fees to accommodate part-time
users. In 1997, 96 per cent of community service and 87 per
cent of private services charged a daily fee. The Department indicated
that daily fees had increased 19 per cent in the community services
and 11 per cent in private services between 1995 and 1997. This represented
an increase of $5 and $3 in community and private centres respectively.
4.61 As already noted above, the community-based sector indicated that
as a result of the loss of the operational subsidy, many centres had attempted
to cut costs, particularly in the areas of staffing, however fee increases
had occurred. Evidence from the private sector indicated that fees, on
average, for private centres had not risen to any great extent. Private
sector witnesses noted that factors other than the Commonwealth's reforms
had contributed to cost increases for service providers. For example,
since January 1997, there had been increases in award wages (for NSW workers
between 3 and 5 per cent in July 1997 and 3 per cent for some
classifications in October 1997). Other areas of cost increases included
superannuation, workers compensation cover, changes to child care regulations,
in particular requirements for two staff to be on duty at any one time,
and changes to building codes. [61]
4.62 The Department concurred with the view that there were a number
of factors that influence fee structures in child care centres. These
include movements in award wages, centres' charging practices, changes
to regulations or increases in overheads such as rates, insurance and
utilities. As a result, `in recent years, and well prior to the Government's
reform decisions, there has been a steady trend in fee levels with fees
increasing at around 6% ($6-$10 per week)'. [62]
4.63 The Department concluded that although the community sector had
faced significant increases in fees:
…it is expected that once community based centres have made the
adjustments necessary to function without operational subsidy and move
to a more competitive footing, market forces will drive fees across
private and community based centres to become more closely aligned.
Additionally, with the supply of child care places moving closer to
meeting demand and many areas facing an over-supply of places, community
based centres will face further pressures to keep their fees competitive.
[63]
Utilisation rates
4.64 Evidence received indicated that both the community-based and the
private sectors were experiencing marked changes in utilisation rates.
Witnesses pointed to decreases in waiting lists for child care places,
withdrawal of children from care and changes in patterns of care.
4.65 While the use of waiting lists as an indicator of unmet demand must
be treated with caution as parents may place a child's name on more than
one waiting list, centres indicated that waiting lists in some areas were
now virtually non-existent. For example, Fairfield City Council indicated
that at its centres, there were no waiting lists for immediate enrolments.
[64]
4.66 In general, average utilisation rates have fallen across the whole
sector, with both community-based and private centres reporting vacancies.
The Department indicated that at one time utilisation had been close to
100 per cent and there were waiting lists. [65]
However, witnesses stated that the utilisation rates in some centres are
now so poor that the viability of services were seriously jeopardised.
The Childcare Industry Association of Queensland, for example, indicated
that while a utilisation rate of 75 per cent was considered necessary
for continued viability, some private centres in Queensland were operating
at rates as low as 25 or 30 per cent. Operators were struggling to
keep services open, with many using mixed age groups in one room to lower
staffing requirements. [66] In other States
the picture was similar. In South Australia, for example, over 40 per
cent of community-based child care centres indicated that they had full
or part-time vacancies, while a similar proportion of private centres
reported vacancies. [67] In Victoria utilisation
rates varied from 24 to 100 per cent with a mean average of 86 per
cent in community-based centres. [68]
4.67 An example of the fall in utilisation was provided by Fairfield
City Council. In 1997 in the ten Council-run long day care centres there
were 46 vacancies. This had increased to 627 vacancies in March 1998.
[69] The QCCC, in its survey of child care
services in Queensland in July 1998, found that in the 297 centres surveyed
5,037 children had been removed from care between January 1998 and June
1998. [70]
4.68 It was reported that demand for family day care was flat and utilisation
rates did not reflect an increase in demand. [71]
In its evidence, the Department noted that in the period 1995-97, the
number of children using family day care decreased by around 11 per
cent. [72]
4.69 Witnesses indicated that changes to utilisation rates are the result
of some or all of the following factors: families withdrawing children
from care altogether; families decreasing the hours of centre-based care
used and opting for a mix of care arrangements including informal care
and family day care in order to keep costs down; and families not seeking
to enrol children in formal care when parents return to work. [73]
The Salvation Army, giving evidence about its centre at Macquarie Fields,
noted:
Since mid-1997, our fees have increased by about $4 a day and average
attendance has actually decreased from 48 to 44. But the number of individual
children attending the centre has increased from 75 to 90 per week,
which reflects a shorter weekly placement of children in our centre.
Sixty-one per cent of our families currently attend for 20 hours
or less, compared with approximately 40 per cent of families who attended
for 20 hours or less 12 months ago. [74]
4.70 In evidence it was stated that many centres responded to vacancies
by trying to fill gaps with part-time placements. The City of Maribyrnong
indicated that one vacant place in a centre can be filled by up to five
children in a week and that `this change to utilization patterns has dramatically
increased administrative tasks of operators, both in the management of
families using the centre and the continual re-visiting of waiting lists
to find age appropriate matches for each vacancy'. [75]
Other centres had closed rooms and amalgamated age groups. This has had
an effect on licensing with some centres being forced to re-license at
a decreased capacity. [76] Some operators of
private centres indicated that they had taken on extra jobs to keep costs
down as demand had fallen:
Due to a recent drop in demand, jobs have been lost and owners are
working longer and longer hours. On a normal day now I work from 8 a.m.
to 6 p.m. and usually four hours on the weekend. That is a 54-hour week.
I am the owner of the centre, the office administrator, the cook and
the cleaner. I am willing to work these hours as I have mortgaged my
home to build this centre and if the centre fails I will lose my home.
[77]
4.71 Many witnesses argued that the changes in utilisation rates were
a direct result of government changes to child care funding arrangements.
The community-based sector pointed to the large increases in fees that
had occurred following the abolition of the operational subsidy which
had led to a decline in the ability of families to afford child care costs.
Witnesses pointed to anecdotal evidence that parents had given `increased
fees' as the main reason for withdrawal of children from full to part-time
care. [78] At the same time, other changes,
particularly to Childcare Assistance, had made child care less affordable
for families. The impact of changes on affordability of child care is
discussed further in Chapter 5 dealing with the impact on families.
4.72 However, evidence pointed to a variety of other factors that are
influencing demand for child care, including:
- greater access to preschool and pre-prep classes being introduced
in some private schools;
- job insecurity and job loss/redundancies; and
- trends towards part-time work. [79]
4.73 The Association of Child Care Centres of NSW, along with other private-for-profit
peak groups and providers, indicated that they considered that the fall
in utilisation rates was primarily due to a lack of new enrolment in child
care centres, particularly from August 1997. The reason put forward for
this was that parents thought that child care fees had gone up in all
types of child care centres. The Association stated that in fact, fees
had not greatly increased in private centres but the media had exaggerated
and overstated the impact of the Government's reforms to the child care
sector. As a result it was estimated that private centres now had vacancies
of approximately 30 per cent across Australia. [80]
A representative of the Association of Child Care Centres noted:
I believe that we have been caught up in misleading media information
and that it has affected our consumer confidence. That is not the only
effect of the declining utilisation, though; government measures have
also impacted. [81]
4.74 One private centre operator stated to the Committee:
As you have heard several times today, along with the community based
sector the private sector is suffering from a drop in numbers. We are
trying to find reasons why this decrease has happened as our fees have
not gone up significantly. The only reason that I can see is that there
is a misconception by the public that all child care is unaffordable…Many
parents do not understand that there is a difference between community
based and private care...The strong media campaign about cuts to child
care has caused huge problems for the private child care sector, where
dwindling numbers are resulting in financial insecurity and massive
loss of jobs. Couple this with the new 20-hour limit, which starts next
week, and you have a recipe for financial disaster for the private child
care industry. [82]
Private centres indicated that they had undertaken advertising in order
to overcome the public's perception that fees had risen in all child care
services. [83]
4.75 In response to the concerns raised by private centres regarding
the impact of the media, the Department indicated that it was concerned
about inaccurate or incomplete media coverage of changes in child care
funding, but there was no way of assessing the extent of the impact.
4.76 The Department also pointed to a number of factors that it considered
were impacting on utilisation rates. It noted that between the 1995 and
1997 Census of Child Care, the number of children in long day care centres
increased by about 17 per cent and the number of Childcare Assistance
hours paid to centres had increased by about 10 per cent. However, some
services were still struggling. A major factor contributing to this has
been the growth in supply of child care places since the early 1990s.
In particular, there had been a significant increase in private centre
places, a 58 per cent increase, between 1994 and 1996 which far exceeded
the demand for them. At the same time, the number of 0-4 year olds in
the population declined. [84]
4.77 The Department indicated that the problem of oversupply was particularly
prevalent in Queensland where, between December 1991 and December 1997,
private long day care places had nearly quadrupled (from 11,658 placed
in 1991 to 46,380 places in 1997) which represented 36 per cent of the
increase in places Australia wide during that period. [85]
The Department noted that Queensland is the only state in Australia that
has no high need areas for child care centres, because of the over supply.
[86] Evidence from Queensland child care providers
supported the Department's concern about the over supply of places in
Queensland and impact on utilisation.
Table 4.2: Proportion of growth in long day care places by State and
Territories from 31 December 1991 to 31 December 1997
| State |
NSW |
VIC |
QLD |
SA |
WA |
TAS |
NT |
ACT |
AUST |
| Proportion of Growth |
31% |
19% |
36% |
4% |
9% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
100% |
Source: Submission No.894, Revised Appendix 4, DHFS.
4.78 The Department noted that improved planning is an important part
of the Government's changes to child care. The new National Planning System
will provide an `integrated approach to child care planning and help address
the long standing problem of uneven supply of child care services'. The
system will ensure that poorly serviced areas and geographically disadvantaged
areas will be given priority for Government funding. [87]
4.79 Under the new arrangements, over the next four years funding for
83,000 (44,000 private and 39,000 community-based) additional places has
been allocated. As a result, approximately 140,000 additional children
will have access to care. In 1998 and 1999 new centre places eligible
for Childcare Assistance will be restricted to 7,000 places a year. These
places are in addition to existing commitments for new centre places to
be established with capital assistance.
4.80 Evidence received by the Committee indicated strong support for
the new planning mechanism. [88] It was stated
that the failure of the Commonwealth and the States to coordinate jointly
funded services, the non-inclusion of the private sector within any planning
framework and the lack of transparency and consultation in the process
has resulted in problems of oversupply in some areas and undersupply in
others. Further, lack of planning had contributed to high unmet demand
for baby places which are more expensive to provide and to competition
to survive between community-based and privately run centres, and between
private centres themselves. [89]
4.81 While the National Planning System was welcomed, evidence was given
indicating that some concerns still existed about the implementation of
the Planning System. The NSW Children's Services Forum, among others,
noted that there was still little evidence of cooperation between governments,
pointing to the problems in New South Wales where it was uncertain whether
or not new places would be eligible for Childcare Assistance because of
different assessments of high needs areas between the Commonwealth and
the State. A further example given was the offer of OSHC places to highly
serviced areas when areas in desperate need of funding were overlooked.
[90] The Sydney Day Nursery and Nursery Schools
Association noted a similar problem when it had successfully lodged a
submission for capital funding for baby places with the State Government
only to find that there was no agreement that the new places would be
eligible for Childcare Assistance. [91]
4.82 A further concern raised was the use of out of date data and the
lack of evaluation processes for the Planning System. The Queensland Child
Care Coalition (QCCC) stated that the planning process is not as open
and accountable as it should be; that although the process has attempted
to address supply gaps in geographical locations, other areas such as
appropriate provision of extended hours care for shift workers, weekend
and extended care have not been addressed. [92]
4.83 In its submission, the Local Government and Shires Associations
of NSW, indicated that NSW councils were generally supportive of the planning
process. However, the Associations had raised concerns with the Department
about the planning framework and models being used by it and whether the
models took into account a wide enough set of factors or were doing so
in a sensitive enough manner. It also raised problems of data, with the
Associations believing that further work was required to develop better
sets of data. It noted that recent attempts by local government to predict
work related child care usage for Contribution Plans under the NSW Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act had revealed `a broad deficiency in available
data. In this context, if new or more customised data is not easily obtainable
we stressed that the Department needed to state any estimates or assumptions
in a transparent way and communicate these to other planning stakeholders.'
[93]
4.84 There was also concern that the proposed system will not deal with
affordability issues. For example, in some areas the cost of buying or
leasing land will impact on affordability. A further matter that required
attention was when demand is masked or depressed by affordability issues.
It was indicated that there were already some local government areas which
were still regarded as high need according to the present system but where
there are vacancies because the cost of care is too high for the potential
customers. [94] For example, Fairfield Council
submitted that recent planning statistics provided by the Department had
indicated that there was an undersupply of 1,100 places for children under
five in the city. The Council argued that this information conflicted
with the situation in Fairfield where there are 3,570 community-based
child care places across the City of which 16 per cent were vacant. [95]
4.85 There were also calls for the restriction on the number of places
to remain in force beyond the year 2000 as `unequal growth will result
in a lowering of standards and closure of services'. [96]
The City of Darebin also commented that a planning policy should be put
in place that only allows for proven demand in the foreseeable future.
[97]
4.86 The Department commented that under the Planning System, Planning
Advisory Committees (PACs) in each State and Territory will identify high
needs areas for additional child care. The Department stated `accurately
measuring demand for child care is complex as there are many interactive
variables that influence a parent's decision to use formal care'. The
process will be in two stages which incorporate a core set of statistics
based on a nationally consistent methodology and local area knowledge
and consultations. Each State office of the Department is introducing
processes to ensure that regional knowledge is actively considered in
the PAC process. In addition, local government is represented on each
PAC and `all committee members are invited and encouraged to bring to
the PAC their expertise in assessing child care needs and any data that
will improve the assessment process'. [98]
Chapter 4 - Impact of Changes to Child Care Funding
on Child Care Services continued
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
Footnotes
[1] Submission No.894, p.12 (DHFS).
[2] Submission No.894, p.12 (DHFS).
[3] Submission No.894, p.13 (DHFS)
[4] Submission No.422, p.8 (NSW Children's Services
Forum).
[5] Submission No.760, pp.3-4 (Country Children's
Services Association of NSW).
[6] Submission No.763, p.2 (Sydney Day Nursery
and Nursery Schools Association).
[7] See Submission No.536, p.5 (City of Yarra),
Submission No.517, p.4 (Community Child Care of Vic).
[8] Submission No.529, p.2 (Melbourne Citymission).
[9] Submission No.572, p.2 (Hunter Children's
Services Forum).
[10] See for example, Submission No.535, p.7
(Local Government and Shires Association of NSW); Submission No.572, p.2
(Hunter Children's Services Forum); Submission No.589, p.11 (Australian
Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union); Submission No.656,
p.2 (Creche & Kindergarten Association of Queensland); Submission
No.657 pp.2-5, (Tufnell Child Care Centre); Submission No.731, p.15 (Australian
Early Childhood Association).
[11] Submission 316, p.2 (Fairfield City Council).
[12] Submission No.502, p.2 (NACBCS); Submission
No.812, p.3 (UTS Child Care Inc).
[13] Submission No.812, p.3 (UTS Child Care
Inc).
[14] Submission No.517, p.3 (Community Child
Care Association of Victoria).
[15] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.21.
[16] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.73.
[17] Submission No.566, Additional Information,
8.5.98 (ACTU)
[18] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.70.
[19] Submission No.465, p.5 (SDA).
[20] Submission No.465, p.7 (SDA).
[21] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, pp.18-9.
[22] Submission No.517, p.5 (Community Child
Care Association of Victoria).
[23] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.24.
[24] Submission No.418, Additional Information,
29.5.98, (NCOSS).
[25] Submission No 891, p.3 (Australian Council
of Social Service).
[26] Committee Hansard, 25.5.98, p.491.
[27] Submission No.536, p.8 (City of Yarra).
[28] Submission No.465, p.7 (SDA).
[29] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.18.
[30] Submission No.732, pp.6-7 (Australian
Catholic Social Welfare Commission).
[31] Submission No.418, Additional Information,
29.5.98, (NCOSS).
[32] Submission No.657 p.22 (Tufnell Child
Care Centre); Submission No.760, p.2 (Country Children's Services Association
of NSW); Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.19.
[33] Submission No.664, pp.11-13 (City of Darebin),
Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.90.
[34] House of Representatives Hansard, 23.10.97,
p.9661.
[35] House of Representatives Hansard, 23.10.97,
p.9662.
[36] House of Representatives Hansard, 5.11.96,
p.6549; Submission No.894, pp.8,15,16, Additional Information, 5.6.98
(DHFS).
[37] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.90;
see also, Committee Hansard 16.6.98, p.547.
[38] Committee Hansard, 16.6.98, p.527.
[39] Submission No.466, p.2 (Australian Federation
of Child Care Associations).
[40] Committee Hansard, 29.4.98, p.324.
[41] Committee Hansard, 16.6.98, pp.581-2.
[42] See for example, Submission No.794, p.3
(Quality Child Care Association of NSW).
[43] Submission No.657, p.3 (Tufnell Child
Care Centre).
[44] Committee Hansard, 16.6.98, pp.581-2.
[45] Submission No.422, p.4 (NSW Children's
Services Forum).
[46] House of Representatives Hansard, 26.6.97,
pp.6481-82.
[47] Submission No.894, p.16 (DHFS).
[48] Submission No.422, p.5 (NSW Children's
Services Forum); see also Submission No.282, p.6 (Ryde Child Care Taskforce).
[49] Submission No.891, p.7 (ACOSS).
[50] Submission No.456, p.12 (Association of
Child Care Centres of NSW); Submission No.794, p.4 (Quality Child Care
Association of NSW).
[51] See for example, Submission No.836, p.8
(Child Care Centres Association of Victoria).
[52] Submission No.542, p.12 (Childcare Industry
Association of Queensland), see also Submission No.422, p.2 (Australian
Federation of Child Care Associations).
[53] See for example, Submission No.440, p.2
(QCCC), Submission No.882, p.5 (Uniting Community Services Australia).
[54] Submission No.862, p.16 (NSW Government).
[55] Submission No.763, p.3 (Sydney Day Nursery
and Nursery Schools Association).
[56] Committee Hansard, 16.6.98, p.547.
[57] Submission No.466, p.2 (Australian Federation
of Child Care Associations); see also Submission No.542, p.2 (Childcare
Industry Association of Queensland).
[58] Submission No.794, p.4 (Quality Child
Care Association of NSW).
[59] Budget Estimates 1998-99, Community Affairs
Legislation Committee, Committee Estimates Hansard, 3.6.98, p.CA149.
[60] Submission No.894, p.20 (DHFS); Committee
Hansard, 25.6.98, p.627.
[61] Submission No.456, p.4 (Association of
Child Care Centres of NSW); Submission No.836, p.10 (Child Care Centres
Association of Victoria).
[62] Submission No.894, p.20; Additional Information,
Handout 2, 25.6.98 (DHFS).
[63] Submission No.894, p.21 (DHFS).
[64] Submission No.316, p.2 (Fairfield City
Council)
[65] Committee Hansard 25.6.98, p.646.
[66] Submission No.542, p.7 (Childcare Industry
Association of Queensland).
[67] Submission No.905, p.2 (South Australian
Government).
[68] Submission No.517, p.3 (Community Child
Care Association of Victoria).
[69] Submission No.316, p.2 (Fairfield City
Council).
[70] QCCC, Stretched to the Limit, September
1998, p.1.
[71] Submission No.131, p.2 (City of Monash);
Submission No.905, p.4 (South Australian Government).
[72] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, p.631.
[73] See for example, Submission No.760, p.2
(Country Children's Services Association of NSW); Submission No.882, p.3
(Uniting Children's Services).
[74] Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, p.264.
[75] Submission No.452, p. 3 (City of Maribyrnong);
see also Submission 316, p.2 (Fairfield City Council).
[76] Submission No.440, p.5 (QCCC).
[77] Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, p.282.
[78] Submission No.882, p.3 (Uniting Community
Services).
[79] Submission No.440, Attachment 3, p.3 (QCCC);
Submission No.731, p.8 (Australian Early Childhood Association).
[80] Submission No.456, pp.3, 7 (Association
of Child Care Centres of NSW).
[81] Committee Hansard, 29.4.98, p.335.
[82] Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, p.282.
[83] Committee Hansard, 29.4.98, p.328.
[84] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, p.628.
[85] Submission No.894, Revised Appendix 4
(DHFS).
[86] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, p.642.
[87] Submission No.894, p.18 (DHFS).
[88] See for example, Submission No. 463, p.9
(Australian Local Government Association)
[89] Submission No. 422, p.6 (NSW Children's
Services Forum), see also Submission 763, p.3 (SDN).
[90] Submission No. 422, p.6 (NSW Children's
Services Forum)
[91] Submission No.763, p.3 (Sydney Day Nursery
and Nursery Schools Association)
[92] Submission No 440 p.5 (QCCC)
[93] Submission No. 535, p.4 (Local Government
and Shires Associations of NSW)
[94] Submission No. 535, p.5 (Local Government
and Shires Associations of NSW)
[95] Submission No.316, p.5 (Fairfield City
Council)
[96] Submission No 542, p.6 (Childcare Industry
Association of Queensland)
[97] Submission No.664, p.5 (City of Darebin)
[98] Submission No.894, Additional Information
28.7.98, p.B6 (DHFS).