Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page

Chapter 6 - Other Matters: Taxation Issues, Workforce Participation and Child Care Workers

6.1 This Chapter discusses other matters referred to in the terms of reference, namely the effect of taxation and related issues, the effect of fee increases and the impact for women and their ability and choice to participate in the workforce, and the impact of changes on workers in the child care industry, their conditions and associated job losses.

Taxation and related issues

6.2 Evidence to the Committee suggested that the taxation system has a significant impact on families' decisions to either participate in the paid workforce or remain in full-time care of their children. The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) stated that this is particularly the case for low-income earners, especially part-time workers, whose workforce participation is far more responsive to changes in tax rates than higher income earners. [1]

6.3 Evidence to the Committee also indicated that the taxation system cannot be separated from the social security system when considering its effect on parents' workforce participation or decision to remain in the full-time care of their children. The Department stated that the interaction between Government assistance and the taxation system is highly complex, with income testing and tax arrangements sometimes resulting in high effective marginal tax rates (proportion of additional income lost through taxation or loss of benefits when work-related earnings increase) and loss of entitlements such as the Health Care Card and exemption from the Medicare levy. [2]

Income support for families

6.4 Income support for families is primarily provided through the social security system. The main benefits include:

• Childcare Assistance – which provides for income-tested subsidies for parents paying for formal child care services.

• Childcare Rebate – which provides non-means-tested subsidies for parents who have work-related child care costs. Low and middle-income families receive 30 per cent of out-of-pocket child care expenses. Families with incomes above the Family Tax Initiative cutoffs receive a rebate of 20 per cent.

• Family Payment – which comprises a minimum rate of payment which is available to most families with children and a higher rate of payment which is provided to low-income families. The rate of payment varies according to the family's income and assets and the number and ages of children in the family.

• Parenting Payment – which provides assistance for parents primarily caring for children at home. This payment replaces Sole Parent Pension and the Parenting Allowance. [3]

6.5 Additional financial support is also provided through the taxation system. This includes:

• the Family Tax Initiative (FTI), which was introduced in January 1997, and provides financial assistance to families with dependent children. The FTI involves an increase of $1,000 in the tax-free threshold for families with children (with a higher increase of $2,500 for single income families with a child under five years of age) that satisfy the relevant income ceiling tests; and

• tax deductions for a small proportion of working parents through salary sacrifice arrangements, making use of a Fringe Benefits Tax exemption for employer-supported child care. [4]

Effect of the taxation system

6.6 Some evidence argued that the taxation system impacts most heavily on middle and low-income families with dependent children, particularly single-income families. [5] The Woman's Action Alliance (WAA) argued that even after receipt of family payments and the FTI many single income families and sole parent families with children pay more tax each year than a dual income family with no children. [6]

6.7 ACOSS argued that marginal tax rates for many lower income people have risen since the mid 1980s. ACOSS argued that there is a strong case on work incentive grounds to reduce tax rates and increase tax thresholds affecting low-income workers, particularly married women who are employed part-time. [7] The Labor Council of NSW also argued that the tax system discourages the workforce participation of women, especially low paid women. In some cases, a woman may increase her hours of work, but due to the operation of the income and assets tests on family assistance payments and income tax liability, the family's overall disposable income may fall. [8]

6.8 A number of submissions also argued that the current tax system treats parents that stay at home to care for their children less favourably than parents in the paid workforce. [9] The Australian Family Association (NSW Branch) argued that the tax system `provides a positive pressure for mothers to work'. The Association noted that this occurs because the tax system `treats families as a collection of individuals rather than a unit, it is much more tax effective for the family to have a second earner, rather than the principal earner seeking an income boost'. [10]

6.9 The WAA proposed a reform to the current tax system to provide for the needs of lower and middle income families, particularly single income families. [11] The proposal involves the payment of a single means tested payment to all families with dependant children (on family incomes of $30,000 per annum or less) with the payment adjusted for family size and made part of the taxable income of the primary earning parent. Families with incomes above this threshold would be subject to an integrated form of `family unit taxation'. A form of income splitting would apply with the total family income divided among the family members and taxed accordingly. [12]

6.10 WAA explained the rationale for the proposal in the following terms:

…all families on the same income should be treated the same. As far as means testing goes, what we have suggested is that it be added to the family's taxable income so that those families who pay no tax would retain the whole payment and those families who pay more tax would retain most of the payment, or would return a lot of the payment to government…all families get a benefit but low income families get the greatest benefit. [13]

6.11 The Committee raised with the WAA issues relating to the operation of the proposal as well as the cost of the proposed scheme. [14] WAA estimated that the annual cost of the `family unit taxation' proposal would be $2.3 billion and that the cost to government was therefore `not unreasonable'. [15] The Committee believes, however, that such expenditures are considerable and would need to be carefully weighed against the perceived `benefits' of such a scheme.

Tax deductibility

6.12 Another option sometimes suggested would be to make child care costs tax deductible, that is, child care expenses are deducted from income tax before tax is paid. The Committee received little evidence supporting this option during the inquiry. Submissions noted that such a proposal would be regressive and inequitable in that parents in the higher income brackets would receive greater benefits than those in lower income brackets. In addition, those persons paying little or no tax would receive no benefit from the introduction of such a measure. [16]

6.13 The Economic Planning Advisory Commission (EPAC) report also noted that under the current income tax scales `tax deductibility of child care costs would be highly regressive, providing large benefits for high income earners and much lesser benefits for low income earners'. [17] The report also noted that parents with the potential to earn high incomes are much less likely than those on low incomes to be dissuaded from re-entering the workforce by child care costs. [18]

6.14 The EPAC report noted that the shortcomings of the tax deductibility approach could be ameliorated through the use of tax rebates (in which tax liability is reduced by a set amount for child care costs, provided tax liability exceeds the value of the rebate) rather than direct deductibility. However, tax rebates do not assist non-working people with no tax liability. [19]

6.15 On the basis of the evidence received the Committee does not support the introduction of tax deductibility of child care costs.

Family Tax Initiative

6.16 The Family Tax Initiative, introduced from 1 January 1997, was a reform measure aimed at providing tax relief for low and-middle income families by providing financial assistance to families with dependent children. [20] Part A is available to all families and increases the tax free threshold by up to $1,000 for each dependent child where the family income is less than $70,000 per annum. This equates to a reduction in tax of $200 per child per annum or $7.70 per fortnight (in 1996-97 a $100 reduction in tax applied as the scheme was in operation for only six months from 1 January 1997). The income limit rises by $3,000 for each additional child.

6.17 Part B is available to families with one main income earner (including single parent families) and at least one dependent child under 5 years of age. Part B provides an additional increase in the tax free threshold of up to $2,500 where taxable income is under $65,000 per annum with one dependent child (plus $3,000 for each additional dependent child). This means a reduction in tax of $500 per annum or $19.20 per fortnight in addition to that provided under Part A (in 1996-97 a $250 reduction in tax applied as the scheme was only in operation for six months). [21]

6.18 The Department stated that the FTI Part B, in particular, provides additional recognition of the role of the parent whose primary role is to care for children in the home `thereby providing greater choice for families in the care of their children'. [22]

6.19 Table 6.1, produced as part of a study by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), shows the impact of the FTI by family type and family income. As indicated in the table the largest gains accrue to single income couples who, on average, gain $11 a week compared with gains of about $5 a week for both dual income couples and sole parents. Single income couples gain the most because they have more children under the age of five years.

Table 6.1: Estimated average increase in disposable family incomes of working families from the Family Tax Initiative, November 1996

	Single income couple	Dual income couple	Sole parent
Decile of private family income	Income increase	Percentage increase	Income increase	Percentage increase	Income increase	Percentage increase
xxx	$ pw	%	$ pw	%	$ pw	%
1	11.70	14.8	11.10	2.4	4.70	1.2
2	13.10	2.4	7.80	1.4	5.10	1.0
3	12.00	2.2	6.60	1.2	5.00	0.9
4	12.80	2.1	6.30	1.0	4.90	0.8
5	11.60	1.7	6.50	0.9	6.40	0.9
6	11.50	1.5	6.30	0.8	*	*
7	9.80	1.2	6.50	0.7	*	*
8	12.40	1.4	6.80	0.7	*	*
9	3.00	0.3	2.60	0.2	*	*
10	0.00	0.0	0.00	0.0	*	*
All	11.30	4.1	5.10	0.7	5.00	0.9

*Estimate unreliable due to small sample size

Source: NATSEM, The Changing Burden of Income Taxation on Working Families in Australia, April 1998, p.14.

6.20 In dollar terms the gains differ across the income ranges, however, the differences are relatively minor. For example, single income couples in the second decile gained, on average, more than those in the first decile ($13.10 a week compared with $11.70 a week). These differences for single income families (couples and sole parents) can be explained by some deciles having a greater proportion of families with children aged under five years. The only families to receive no benefit from the FTI were those in the highest income decile. Their assessable incomes exceeded the thresholds. The NATSEM study found that the overall impact of the measure was progressive as the largest gains in percentage terms were received by the families with the lowest family incomes. [23]

6.21 Evidence to the inquiry regarding the impact of the proposal on families was mixed. Some groups, including the Community Child Care Association of Victoria and the Queensland Child Care Coalition (QCCC) contend that the FTI has not been effective in allowing families real choice in whether to work or for a parent to stay at home to care for their children, arguing that the amount of assistance available was too low to make the choice to care for children at home a viable option for many. [24] The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission (ACSWC) stated that `it is questionable as to whether the level of assistance is sufficient to encourage more diverse choices by two-parent families about how to share their work and caring responsibilities'. [25] The Australian Family Association stated that even with the FTI `there is still a tax penalty on a family who chooses to be a single income family, which means a family who chooses to have a parent at home caring for children'. [26]

6.22 Other groups argued, however that the FTI had gone some way towards assisting parents caring full-time for their children at home. [27] WAA stated that the FTI recognises, to some extent, the fact that `on any given income there is a decreased capacity to pay tax according to the number of people living on that income'. [28]

6.23 The Committee, noting the evidence received, considers that while the FTI provides some assistance to families, especially for a parent who chooses to stay at home to care for his or her children, the overall level of assistance is not substantial and may therefore limit the choices available to families.

Fringe Benefits Tax exemption

6.24 The Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) applies to non-wage benefits that are provided to employees by an employer. Tax on non-exempt fringe benefits is levied at the top marginal income tax rate plus the Medicare levy, namely 48.5 per cent. However, the FBT legislation provides for exemptions for certain employer expenditure, such as benefits to employees from the provision of work-based child care facilities. [29]

6.25 Specifically, the exemption applies to benefits to employees from child care facilities located on the premises of the employer. The exemption also applies if the centre is located away from the main place of business, providing the employer actually owns or leases the centre. Over time the definition of `business premises' was extended through private rulings of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to include places leased by the employer in existing child care centres. In December 1996 the ATO in a final taxation ruling in relation to FBT and the definition of `business premises' tightened the exemption provisions – as noted above, the FBT exemption now applies only when the child care takes place on premises for which the employer has either exclusive proprietary or occupancy rights. [30]

6.26 The National Association of Community Based Children's Services (NACBCS) stated that in the past the general practice for businesses was to lease space in an existing child care centre. If an employer was leasing a child care space then the employer could also `salary package' the child care fee – the employer paid the full cost of child care and the employee parent received a benefit through paying lower PAYE tax as the cash component of the salary was reduced by the value of the child care fees. NACBCS argued that the recent ruling by the ATO has largely eliminated the practice of employers leasing space for this purpose. [31]

6.27 In its previous and current form the FBT exemption has had only a limited impact on the supply of child care places. The Department indicated that there are currently 3,300 employer sponsored places. [32] The first half of the 1990s saw the major expansion in child care arrangements to take advantage of the FBT exemption. Most of this growth was in employer-sponsored places in off-premises centres. The expansion also reflected the development of `salary sacrifice' arrangements. [33]

6.28 Evidence received by the Committee indicated that the recent ATO decision has had several effects. Firstly, some centres, particularly in the Sydney and Melbourne CBD, have been forced to close. These centres relied on being able to charge relatively high fees and ensured a high utilisation through FBT exempt salary packaging of child care fees. [34] Secondly, NACBCS stated that some parents who were receiving the benefit of FBT exempt salary packaging of child care fees, no longer receive this benefit and have to pay the full cost of child care. [35]

6.29 NACBCS argued that the ruling has `reduced some of the child care places available, particularly those located close to city perimeters or in the city areas and some families can no longer afford the fees being charged by their services and have not been able to find affordable alternative child care arrangements'. [36]

6.30 Some submissions noted that, overall, very few employees have access to work-based child care. [37] CCNA stated that `many hard pressed businesses do not regard child care as part of their core business. On the other hand, most parents prefer their child care near home.' [38] NACBCS also noted that `the availability of FBT exempt child care places is very limited. It has only been available to parent employees who work for a progressive employer who has been willing to invest in the provision of child care. For most employees throughout Australia this is not the case.' [39]

6.31 Some submissions noted that corporate organisations no longer have any incentive to provide child care for their employees. [40] NACBCS stated that although employers can still choose to provide child care places, if the centre is not located on the employer's premises or if the space is leased then child care fees cannot form part of a FBT exempt salary package. [41]

6.32 Several submissions noted that the tax support provided through the FBT exemption is highly regressive. [42] The NSW Government stated that `incentives through the taxation system tend to favour those on higher incomes and larger companies who are in a better position to provide employer supported child care'. [43] NACBCS noted that FBT exemption arrangements `directly benefits parent employees who are on higher incomes, at least $50,000 per annum…This level of income precludes most employees from accessing any benefits associated with FBT exemption'. [44] The EPAC report also noted that `the general availability of salary sacrifice would in effect amount to tax deductibility of child care expenses for employees, with assistance therefore greatest for high income earners'. [45]

6.33 The Committee does not consider that the FBT exemption for child care costs is the most appropriate form of child care assistance as it entails inequities in the provision of assistance by providing benefits primarily to higher income earners.

Effect of the social security system

6.34 In addition to commenting on the taxation system, submissions and other evidence also pointed to perceived anomalies in the social security payment structure in their treatment of parents in the paid workforce compared with those in full-time care of the children. The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission noted that the Childcare Rebate is not as strictly means tested as Parenting Payment (the payment available to a parent who chooses to stay at home with their children). In addition different `taper' rates (the rate at which payment decreases as income increases) operate for these payments. The Commission noted that:

These different taper rates for Parenting Payment and Childcare Assistance, and the fact that Childcare Assistance is payable per child, whereas Parenting Payment is the same whether there is one child or ten in the family, indicates that home-based care by single-income families is treated less favourably. [46]

6.35 Choice for Families National Association also noted that child care subsidies are not available for parents caring for children at home despite the fact that `child care is an expense incurred in having children, and relinquishing an income, or part of, in order to care for one's children, incurs considerable expense to the family'. [47]

6.36 The Association further stated that:

Parents who opt for paid child care receive considerable financial assistance whilst those that stay at home or juggle their work commitments and parenting responsibilities without using paid child care receive comparably very little. [48]

6.37 The Association argued that this indicates that the State is `willing to fund money for children via child care subsidies and rebates, but they are not willing to pay that money to all people on equivalent incomes who had children…That is basically the situation as it stands today: rewarding one choice and penalising another'. [49]

6.38 Evidence, however, suggests that there are not significant incentives from government payments for parents to return to work and use paid child care. The EPAC report examined the question of how benefit payments to families with both parents working compare with those with one parent working and the other remaining at home to care for a child. The report looked at low, middle and high income families and examined the total impact of Childcare Assistance, Childcare Cash Rebate when the spouse re-enters the workforce, and subsequent implications for other payments (which include the Family Payment, Parenting Allowance and the Family Tax Initiative). [50] The report concluded that `in virtually all real world circumstances, total payments…will be less for parents in the workforce than for parents not in the workforce'. [51]

6.39 A recent NATSEM study also looked at the issue of whether the government assistance for working families and associated income tests provide a financial incentive for women to increase their workforce participation. The results of the study indicate that for many low-income couples with young children there is not a strong incentive for women to increase their hours of work. Increasing tax liability and reduction in family payments often erodes the financial gains of a second income. [52]

6.40 Some submissions and other evidence also argued that the present structure of child care assistance supports and encourages the two-income family at the expense of the one-income family. [53] The Australian Family Association noted that:

The enormous social pressure for families to have two wage earners is a major problem underlying the whole child-care question…The existence of child care subsidies has not encouraged an environment of choice for women, it appears merely to have propped up a system requiring women to leave their babies in the care of others while they work. [54]

6.41 The Committee notes, however, that there is a fiscal trade-off with two-income families. It needs to be recognised that while funding is provided directly for formal child care, the Government also increases its revenue from PAYE taxation. Because of the contribution by the second parent who works, the pool of money available from general revenue is not necessarily reduced by the payment of child care subsidies. [55]

Promoting `choice' for families

6.42 Several submissions from groups such as the Australian Family Association and Choice for Families National Association argued that a more generous level of financial support should be provided by the Government to enable parents to exercise greater choice about whether to participate in the paid workforce or stay at home and care for their children on a full-time basis. [56] The Australian Family Association, referring to research by the Institute of Family Studies, commented that:

Across the board, 67 per cent of working mothers were working when they would have preferred to be home with their children because financially they felt that they had no other choice… Many of these women would have had the benefit of Childcare Assistance but the effect of the subsidies only going to assist women and families caring for children when their children are placed in care outside the home means that it deprives many women of the choice to be at home caring for their children. This is not a choice that all women will want to make but it is a choice that many women want to make. [57]

6.43 Some groups, such as the Woman's Action Alliance, Australian Family Association and the ACSWC, argued for the introduction of a universal child care payment to all families with young children. [58] ACSWC argued for the introduction of a means tested flat rate payment to all parents of young children under the age of six irrespective of their work/care balance – `this payment is primarily designed to address some of the anomalies between payments for parents who care for their children at home and parents who use formal child care'. [59]

6.44 Other groups such as ACOSS and Uniting Community Services Australia argued that because the needs of people who care for their children at home are very different from the needs of those who pay for others to care for their children it would not be equitable to provide the same payment to these two groups of parents, and that a system of separate family payments would be required. [60] ACOSS argued that in terms of government assistance, the former require income support for the parent who has withdrawn from the paid labour force while the latter require assistance with child care costs. [61]

6.45 Several submissions noted that families caring for children at home already qualify for various forms of Government financial assistance. [62] ACOSS noted that parents in these circumstances already receive `a great deal of support' from the Government. ACOSS stated that of the $12.6 billion spent by the Commonwealth Government on family support in 1995-96, less than 9 per cent ($1.1 billion) was spent on child care. [63]

6.46 The Department also stated that the provision of Childcare Assistance and the Childcare Rebate is directed at ensuring affordable child care for low and middle-income families, particularly for families in the paid workforce. The Department noted that Childcare Assistance is available for non-work related purposes (up to 20 hours per week per child from April 1998) for parents caring for children at home. The Department further stated that the Government also provides other forms of assistance to families, for example the Family Payment, which is available to assist families with dependent children and the Parenting Payment, which is available for parents primarily caring for children at home. The FTI also benefits many families, particularly those families where one parent is caring for their children at home. [64]

6.47 The Committee notes that the EPAC report rejected the argument that assistance should be provided by way of general untied payments to families with children. The report noted that:

the developmental benefits for older children from quality, non-parental care, and the persuasive arguments of the need to overcome work disincentives facing women in particular, provide a rationale for subsidies which are conditional on the use of quality, paid care. This suggests that government should complement general family payments with specific subsidies for quality paid child care. [65]

6.48 ACOSS also noted that assistance for child care costs should be targeted on the basis of the need for, and the cost of, child care provision. Options such as building child care subsidies into the Family Payment `would not only spread assistance far too thinly, but may also result in either an excessive cost to government, or a sharp reduction in child care assistance for those who need it most'. [66]

6.49 The Committee notes that most of the groups advocating additional assistance to families `at home' did not provide costings of their proposals. The Committee requested that the Department provide a costing of the proposal relating to the payment of a child care allowance to single income families with dependants. The Department advised the Committee that it was unable to provide this information `as the proposal is not part of current Government policy'. [67] The Committee, nevertheless, considers that many of the proposals advocated by groups who were arguing for increased assistance for parents caring full-time for children at home, would entail significant additional budget outlays.

Conclusion

6.50 The Committee notes the views expressed by several groups and individuals during the inquiry that parents should be given the widest possible choice to either participate in the paid workforce or remain in full-time care of their children. It notes that a range of programs already exists, either through the taxation or social security systems, that provide assistance to meet this objective. The Committee acknowledges that there will be differing views over the appropriate `mix' of support given to families to pursue their choices in these matters.

6.51 The Committee notes the evidence received that indicates that there are features of the tax and social security systems, and the interaction of these systems, that may mitigate against parents' choices, and believes that the relationship between various Government assistance programs and the taxation system should be closely monitored to ensure that there is a balance between targeting assistance and encouraging workforce participation and/or parenting responsibilities.

6.52 The Committee has some reservations in relation to the proposal put to it during the inquiry for the introduction of universal child care payments to all families with young children. These reservations relate to the potentially significant additional budgetary costs of such a scheme given the current budgetary constraints, and the possibility that funds would be spread too thinly across the potential target group. The Committee would be concerned if the introduction of universal payments led to the situation where there were less financial resources available for low-income families and other disadvantaged groups most in need of assistance.

Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the costs required to implement any proposal to introduce universal child care payments to all families with young children be investigated to ascertain whether such a proposal could be at all viable.

Women's labour force participation

6.53 The Committee received a significant amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that fee increases and changes in the child care sector were adversely affecting the ability of women to participate in the paid workforce. [68] Evidence suggested that women are withdrawing from the workforce or changing their working arrangements in response to the changes in the child care area.

6.54 During the inquiry, organisations representing the child care industry, unions the welfare sector and others, commented on the adverse impact that the changes to child care funding have had on women's workforce participation. NACBCS stated that the result of fee increases `has meant that women have or are intending to give up participating in paid work or are cutting back their hours as they can no longer afford to use child care services'. [69] The NSW Government stated that `there is no question that women's participation in the work force is intimately linked to quality child care provisions…women who are in the lower income brackets will be the first to leave the work force where the child care effects are impacting on the family'. [70]

6.55 The ACTU commented on the falling workforce participation rates for women with children, and expressed the expectation that workforce participation would reduce further as fees continued to increase. [71] Uniting Community Services Australia also noted that `many women withdrawing their children from care are choosing to leave the workforce or significantly reduce their working hours because in financial terms, the costs of child care outweigh the benefits of paid employment'. [72]

6.56 A number of organisations representing the child care and welfare sectors have conducted a series of surveys to monitor the impact of the changes to child care funding. These surveys have been referred to previously in this report. The principal findings as they relate to female workforce participation, based upon the comments of those who responded to the surveys, are summarised below:

• NACBCS and LHMU national survey of community owned child care centres released in December 1997 found that 54 per cent of centres reported parents giving up work to care for children due the costs of child care and 80 per cent of centres reported that parents had decreased booked hours of care. [73]

• The QCCC survey of child care services in Queensland released in February 1998 found that parents were forced to reduce the hours of paid child care for their children and were electing to reduce working hours or leave their jobs altogether in order to reduce child care costs. [74]

• A survey of parents from child care centres in a range of local government areas in NSW conducted by Families at Work for the NSW Department of Community Services, released in November 1997, found that a significant number of women have left permanent full-time work in order to care for their children. While some had left the workforce completely others had become permanent part-time or casual part-time employees. [75]

• A telephone survey conducted by the Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS) of parents with children in child care in October 1997 found that 40 per cent of respondents had been forced to change their work arrangements because of the high cost of child care. There was also evidence of women leaving the workforce altogether or reducing their hours of work. [76]

6.57 It was submitted that these surveys show a consistent pattern of women either changing their working arrangements or leaving the paid workforce as a result of the cuts to child care funding. The Department argued, however, that the results of these surveys should be treated with caution as they did not always cover a representative sample of child care centres; often had a low response rate; did not include an analysis of the demographic factors influencing the results; and, often used anecdotes to support their conclusions. [77]

6.58 Several submissions and other evidence also pointed to a trend that suggested that many families are developing more complex and unstable care arrangements combining formal and informal care with the additional stresses that these new arrangements bring. [78] The South Australian Government stated that:

The impact of this added instability and retreat from the formal child care system may have [a] long term impact on children as they miss out on the benefits that quality child care can bring. A recent sample of child protection intakes in South Australia suggests that 15% of children at risk were left without adequate supervision. If childcare becomes less accessible and more expensive, this figure may increase. [79]

The Queensland Government also commented on the increase in the `mixing and matching' care arrangements noting that these `discontinuities in care arrangements' could effect children's learning and development. [80]

6.59 In contrast to the evidence received from the child care sector and others referred to above, evidence from the Department and the Office of the Status of Women (OSW) suggested that the child care fee increases had not affected women's decisions about workforce participation. The Department stated that:

We have undertaken considerable analysis of the available statistics on women's work force participation and we can find no evidence to suggest a decrease in women's labour force participation…We have looked at overall participation rates of women with dependants, the number of hours worked by women and the rates of participation of women with children aged nought to four. In none of these areas has there been significant movement of women out of the work force. [81]

6.60 This view was supported by OSW, which stated that `there is no consistent or substantial evidence of the effects of reforms to the Children's Services Programme having an impact on the labour force participation of women with children'. [82]

6.61 The Department provided the Committee with a range of data on the workforce participation of woman based on ABS sources. The Department noted that data for labour force participation of females with dependent children (under 15 years) has remained relatively stable at around 59 per cent from January 1996 to April 1998 (the latest data available). [83] The Committee notes, however, that these figures may not provide an accurate indication of the workforce participation rates for women as the age ranges are too broad to reflect the situation of women with children in long day care centres in particular. [84]

6.62 The Committee therefore requested the Department to provide more relevant statistics relating to the workforce participation rate of women with children aged 0-4 years (to reflect the situation of women with children using long day care centres). The Department provided data that showed (see the graph below) that some 31 per cent of women in this category were employed full-time in 1994 and this had increased marginally to 32 per cent in 1997. For those employed part-time the corresponding rates were 59 per cent and 60 per cent. While the proportion of women employed full-time had increased slightly from 31 per cent in 1996 to 32 per cent in 1997, those in part-time employment had remained static at 60 per cent from 1996 to 1997. [85]

Graph 6.1: Employment status of women with dependants aged 0-4 as a percentage of all women with dependants aged 0-4 in the labour force, Australia 1994-1997

Source: DHFS, Tabled document, 25 June 1998.

6.63 Some evidence, including that from the QCCC and the Labor Council of NSW, argued that the official figures fail to take account of the fact that women who withdraw from the workforce but whose partners continue to work will not be counted in the unemployment figures and will therefore also not be recorded in the labour force participation figures. [86] QCCC argued that the available ABS statistics do not `accurately reflect the actual level of female unemployment and underemployment resulting from the increased cost of child care'. [87] OSW noted, however, that data from the ABS on discouraged job-seekers in the publication Persons Not in the Labour Force (September 1997) shows a fall in the number of discouraged female job seekers in the prior 12 months, although it notes that the ABS publication does not provide a breakdown of the figures for women with and without dependent children. [88]

6.64 ACOSS argued that it was `too soon' for the full impact on women's choices and decisions about participating in paid work to show up in labour force figures. ACOSS argued that early indications are that the changes are having a substantial impact, and this trend is likely to continue. [89] The South Australian Government argued similarly, submitting that:

Lags in data collection and the absence of quality information on the decisions that families are now making about care, accounts for the lack of robust statistical evidence of movement of women out of the workforce…However, the trends outlined within recent studies indicate increased pressures on women and their families. These pressures may jeopardise workforce participation and threaten the productivity and flexibility of the Australian workforce. [90]

6.65 The ABS also provides data on discouraged job-seekers in Persons Not in the Labour Force on persons not in the labour force for child care reasons but who wanted to work. [91] The data shows a slight decline from September 1996 to September 1997 in the overall numbers of persons in this category, from 304,600 to 296,500. However, the numbers of women with the youngest child aged 3-5 years citing child care as the main reason for not actively looking for work increased from 50,700 in 1996 to 56,200 in 1997. [92] The ABS survey showed that in 1997 an estimated 296,500 persons wanted to work but were not in the labour force for child care reasons. Some 97 per cent were female, representing 4 per cent of all females in the civilian population aged 15-69 years. The majority (55 per cent) of these females were aged 25-34 years with a further 28 per cent aged 35-44 years. Of females not in the labour force for childcare reasons, 55 per cent reported the age of their youngest child as 0-2 years and a further 26 per cent reported the age of the youngest child as 3-5 years. [93]

6.66 Some evidence suggested that determining the impact of changes to child care policy on labour force participation is complicated by the difficulty in separating the effect of other relevant factors. The Department stated that other issues that need to be considered include personal choice about the type of care families want for their children, parents' individual financial situation, including access to other forms of Government assistance and choice about balancing work and family commitments. [94]

6.67 The Government acknowledged the need for better information on the participation of women in the workforce. OSW informed the Committee that in order to gain a better insight into the factors that influence the participation of women with children in the labour force, they have commissioned research to gather qualitative information regarding these issues. [95] The Committee, however, questioned OSW as to the decision to commission qualitative research rather than quantitative research given the gaps in the information in ABS and other data, especially for women with children in the younger age groups. [96] OSW responded that at the time the research was commissioned `it was the judgment of the office that it was the qualitative dimension that would be most relevant to us in a policy sense' in determining factors relating to women's workforce participation. [97] The Committee, however, considers that there is a need for improved quantitative information on the issue of women's workforce participation.

Conclusion

6.68 The Committee received a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting that recent fee increases and changes in the child care sector are having an adverse impact on women's participation in the paid workforce. Evidence to the inquiry, including the results of several surveys, showed that many women are withdrawing from the paid workforce or reducing their working hours citing the increasing costs associated with child care as the major reason.

6.69 While the published labour force data do not appear to reflect these trends to date, the Committee believes that the full impact of the changes has yet to be reflected in these official statistics. The Committee is of the view that some decline in women's labour force participation rates will become evident in official labour force data in subsequent years. The Committee notes that some indications of this trend are already emerging in the data on discouraged job-seekers, with some increase in the numbers of women citing child care considerations as their principal reason for not actively looking for work. The Committee also notes that while labour force participation rates for women with dependents under 15 are published monthly, only the June annual ABS survey collects information about women with dependents aged 0-4, 5-9 and 10-14. The Committee considers that more frequent collection of data on labour force participation rates of women with young children would have been of benefit to the Committee's analysis of the impact of this matter.

Reduction in Commonwealth revenues/additional cost of social security payments

6.70 Some evidence to the Committee suggested that as a result of women withdrawing from the paid workforce because of the costs of child care there will be a reduction in Commonwealth Government revenue from foregone taxation. In addition, it was argued that there may also be additional costs to government from the payment of social security benefits to those formerly employed. [98] Uniting Community Services Australia commented that:

The outcome is an increased drain on government which will be a direct result of decreased tax revenue and increased costs relating to income support and other forms of social security. [99]

6.71 Some submissions argued that it was still too early to develop precise estimates of any additional `cost' to government as a result of any reduction in the workforce participation of women. [100] The Department stated, however, that analysis of expenditure data and client numbers for Family Payment and Parenting Allowance for the period from July 1997 to the present `shows no significant trends that could be attributed to families moving out of work. There is no evidence at this stage to suggest that trends will emerge., [101]

6.72 The Committee notes that, as discussed in Chapter 2, a 1994 ANAO report stated that government involvement in the provision of child care may have fiscal benefits if increased taxation revenue and reduced welfare payments exceed the cost of the government's involvement in child care. ACOSS also made a similar argument that the additional costs to government of social security payments paid to parents leaving the workforce may in fact be greater than the cost to government of child care expenditures. [102]

Impact on workers in the child care sector

6.73 In determining the impact of the Government's changes on workers in the child care industry and their conditions, and associated job losses, it is necessary to understand that child care workers are amongst the lowest paid workers in the country given the nature and responsibility of their work. Licensing and accreditation requirements and State awards regulate the staffing, pay and conditions of workers in child care centres.

6.74 EPAC reported that `pay rates for child care workers are below those for occupations with similar proportions of workers with education and training, and even below unskilled occupations such as shop assistants or care park attendants. Another industrial feature of the child care sector is the lack of career paths.' [103]

6.75 In addition to the problems identified with a career path, EPAC also referred to the importance of having qualified workers in child care noting that the national standards being implemented in 1996 stipulated that by 2000 at least 50 per cent of all workers in long day care should have qualifications from either a 2-year post-secondary course in child care or a 3-year tertiary course in early childhood care or education. [104] These standards recognise the responsibility child care workers have in managing the complex interaction of the physical, emotional and intellectual development of the children entrusted to their care. As the Director of one child care centre wrote:

My fundamental belief has always been that child care as an educational and developmental setting for young children deserves the highest level of experienced and qualified staff as possible and it is for this reason that I have always chosen to work in child care as opposed to other educational settings. [105]

6.76 The overwhelming majority of workers in child care, reported as around 90 per cent, are female. The dedication and commitment of individual child care workers plays an enormous role in the effective provision of child care services in Australia. However, judging from the evidence provided to the Committee, this dedication and commitment has in many instances been severely tested by the changes taking place in the child care industry.

6.77 The impact of the changes on child care workers have been reported in the findings of State and national surveys, some of which were referred to earlier in this report. While the findings of these surveys are based primarily on anecdotal evidence, they found that a large percentage of the centres which responded to the surveys reported staff cutbacks, reduced working hours, changed working patterns and loss of working conditions due to the cost cutting measures by child care centres.

6.78 Many submissions referred to the findings of these surveys to argue the negative impact of the changes on child care workers. [106] The similarity of the findings of the various surveys, irrespective of the methodology they may have used, was also commented upon. As the Australian Early Childhood Association (AECA) wrote, `the information from all the surveys conducted is so consistent that the voices of parents, child care centre owners, Directors and workers must be heard'. [107]

6.79 The most prominent of these surveys were:

• `Cost versus Quality – The Results of a National Survey of Community Owned Children's Services', NACBCS, September 1997; [108]

• `Family friendly? You must be kidding', NCOSS, November 1997; [109]

• `Who Will Mind the Children? – National Survey of Community Owned Child Care Centres', LHMU/NACBCS, December 1997; [110] and

• `Child Care Cuts are Crippling – Report on the Findings of the QCCC Survey of Child Care Services in Queensland', QCCC, February 1998. [111]

Job losses and redundancies

6.80 The ultimate impact of the changes for child care workers are the job losses that have been occurring through centre closures, and through centres attempting to meet tightening economic circumstances by reducing staffing levels. The number of centres which have closed since the Government's changes, and thus the associated loss of jobs, has been referred to earlier in this report. Information provided to the Committee has indicated that while many who have lost their job have been able to gain employment at other centres, some workers have had difficulty in getting new jobs or have stopped seeking a job and dropped out of the employment market. [112]

6.81 Although centres are reluctant to make staff redundant, preferring to rely upon natural attrition to reduce staff numbers, redundancies are increasing. In some cases retrenched workers have received little or no redundancy pay as the majority of centres employ 15 or less employees. Often, centres that have closed are so badly in debt that they are unable to meet outstanding long service leave or accrued annual leave payments. Sometimes this leads to lengthy delays and court proceedings, though more usually staff are forced to walk away with nothing and very little prospect of recovering the entitlements they are owed. [113]

6.82 Ancillary positions such as cooks, clerks, cleaners, grounds and maintenance staff have also been reduced in many centres as a part of financial restructuring. These positions are deemed to be less necessary as centres try to maintain minimum staff-child ratios. However, ancillary staff play a major role in ensuring primary care givers can devote their time to children. The reduction in these positions results in a direct increase in the workload of the remaining staff members and impacts on children in their care. [114]

6.83 The amalgamation of child care centres was also reported as leading to staff losses. The resultant economic benefit of amalgamation was usually at the cost of the director's and other administrative/clerical positions.

6.84 The Department commented that `since the Government's reforms, preliminary 1997 Census data shows that the majority of staff in centres are still employed full time and the levels of part time and casual staff have remained relatively unchanged'. [115] This comment is at variance with much of the evidence received by the Committee. The Committee believes this again illustrates the difficulties commented upon earlier of up-to-date statistics not being available about developments in the rapidly changing child care industry. Nevertheless, while the evidence received by the Committee is largely anecdotal, it was provided by State and local government bodies, peak organisations, child care centre directors and management committees, unions representing child care workers, and individual child care workers – both current and former.

Impact on child care workers and conditions of service

6.85 The impact of the changes on child care workers and their conditions has been touched upon in the discussion in Chapter 4 on the impact of the changes on child care centres and in Chapter 5 on the impact on the children in the centres. A range of issues was raised with the Committee, though a number were constantly referred to throughout the submissions and evidence. Similar issues were also raised across all sectors of child care – from long day care and family day care to out of school hours care. The most commonly recurring issues are discussed below.

6.86 The most significant impact has been changes in staffing levels. The Committee received evidence that many centres were reducing the number of qualified staff to minimum requirements or, conversely, reducing the number of child enrolments on their license to enable them to reduce the number of qualified staff they were required to employ. [116] As a cost saving measure centres are employing younger, unqualified and inexperienced staff. This has implications for staff/child ratios, caregiver behaviour and the quality of care provided by the centre. The Committee also commented upon staff/child ratios in Chapter 4.

6.87 Associated with changes to staffing levels has been a reduction in working hours. Reductions in working hours, by reducing staff from full-time to part-time or by converting their previous employment to casual employment, were reported across the States, [117] as well as the private and community sectors. [118] In some centres teacher director positions have also been downgraded. [119]

6.88 The move towards increased casualisation of the child care workforce due to falling utilisation and other economic factors was reported in many submissions. [120] The casualisation of staff generally means shorter shifts each day or a shorter working week and continuity of care is disrupted. The commitment of staff to their work and any sense of professionalism can be undermined with an increased casualisation of staff.

6.89 These changes to staffing arrangements can result in children being cared for by a large number of differing staff, thereby losing the important element of continuity and familiarity of those who care for them. Research indicates that where staff turnover is high, caregivers are less responsive and do not interact frequently with children. This can lead to children finding it difficult to bond or even relate to the caregiver, with all the concomitant problems such disruption creates. [121]

6.90 Similar problems faced by centres in rural and remote areas and towns are exacerbated. Child care services in these areas have greater difficulty in attracting qualified child care workers, largely because they are unable to offer salaries of a sufficient level to induce qualified staff to regional areas. Workers are then disadvantaged by difficulties in accessing further training. [122]

6.91 Financial restrictions were also given as a reason for limiting attendance at conferences and other in-service training provided to staff for their professional development, thereby reducing staff opportunities to increase competencies and diversify and update skills. [123] The Northern Territory Health Services submitted that in remote areas such as the Territory, `the exchange of information and professional stimulation gained through attendance at these events is often critical in supporting good service quality'. [124]

6.92 The child care changes have also had an administrative impact upon workers. In particular, directors now have a greater responsibility juggling administrative and management duties with increased time spent working directly with the children as a way of saving on staff costs. Often, the growing administrative responsibilities can only be performed out of hours. [125] Owner/proprietors of private centres have also indicated that they have taken on more duties and worked even longer hours. [126]

6.93 The minimum time spent by staff away from direct care on administrative responsibilities, such as maintaining developmental records for each child required for accreditation and planning individually appropriate programs, is no longer available due to reduced staff levels. Staff now have to complete this work either in their own time or at times when responsible for caring for the children. In addition, staff may be expected to attend staff meetings or Management Committee meetings in their own time and at their own expense. [127]

6.94 A number of other changes in working conditions were also reported. They include:

• reductions in breaks from direct contact with children;

• reduction in or loss of rostered days off;

• performing extra functions such as assisting with administrative duties, preparing meals, cleaning and laundry, and grounds and general maintenance;

• decreased flexibility of when staff can take Award leave. It was submitted that in Western Australia the two weeks special leave introduced into the Award in recognition of the stress factor in contact child care `has all but disappeared' as centres struggle for viability; [128] and

• changes in award coverage. In Western Australia it was reported that the terms and conditions of employees previously covered by the Child Care (Subsidised Centres) Award were effectively diminished as a consequence of the loss of operational subsidy. [129]

6.95 Stress is often recorded as one of the main reasons why child care workers leave their jobs. Yet workers have been reporting a general increase in stress levels. Staff burnout due to increasing stress levels may result in greater utilisation of sick leave with consequent disruption to staffing rosters. Factors contributing to increasing stress have been given as:

• reductions in hours of work;

• redundancies and employment concerns;

• changes in working patterns, especially increases in child to staff ratios and working with younger, inexperienced staff resulting in heavier individual workloads;

• constantly operating within the confines of extremely tight budgets, so that less educational equipment and consumables are purchased, broken toys are often not mended or replaced and, generally, the overall environment of the centre deteriorates; and

• bearing the brunt of parental frustration concerning changes to child care, especially over the rising cost of care.

6.96 Related to increasing stress and the above issues has been a reduction in staff morale. Low morale, which can effect the performance and commitment of staff and the quality of service provided, has been reported as resulting from many factors including:

• uncertainty over job security in the future;

• an undermining of professional pride through an inability to sustain the standard and level of service built up by dedicated staff, often over many years; and

• disillusionment due to the changes that have resulted in the departure of children and families who had provided stability to a centre's operation.

6.97 This combination of factors, including perceived loss of vocational opportunity, has also led to a movement of qualified and experienced staff away from child care and into other career paths including the formal education sector or into taking up alternative part-time or casual forms of employment, such as relief nursing and supermarket work. The Darebin City Council, for example, wrote that `anecdotal evidence suggests that Child Care workers are seeking more stable opportunities in other industries and many years of valuable training is being lost'. [130]

Concerns for future child care staffing

6.98 The impact on workers as described to the Committee appears to have created considerable disillusionment within the child care industry. This impact has not just created current problems in career options but also concerns for the future. Qualified child care workers are reputedly having difficulty in obtaining employment or are opting out of the industry, ongoing training for workers remaining in the industry has been reduced thereby impeding career development, and students of early education/child care courses are concerned at their employment prospects after graduating. [131]

6.99 It was also reported that people are deciding not to take up, or continue with, child care as a vocation, as reflected in reduced enrolments both in TAFE and University child care courses in 1998. [132] The Northern Territory Health Services noted that `while it is not possible to establish a causal link between enrolments and restructuring in the NT child care sector, the falling interest in child care studies is a concern in relation to child care service quality'. [133]

Conclusion

6.100 The Committee considers that, based on the widespread anecdotal evidence provided during the inquiry, child care workers have been detrimentally affected by the changes which have been occurring in the child care industry. They have suffered job losses, and reduced working hours, wages, conditions of service and career development opportunities. They are lowly paid and working in difficult conditions. Professional recognition should be given to the valuable contribution provided by these workers in managing the physical, emotional and intellectual development of children in their care. As one submission noted, next to parents, it is with the children's services workers that `the greatest responsibility for the care and education of the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society rests'. [134]

SENATOR THE HON ROSEMARY CROWLEY
CHAIR

December 1998

Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page

 

Footnotes

[1] Submission No.891, p.12 (ACOSS).

[2] Submission No.894, p.24 (DHSF).

[3] Submission No.894, pp.17, 26 (DHFS); DSS, Annual Report 1996-97, pp.137-51. Assistance to families with children is also provided through Maternity Allowance, Child Disability Allowance and Rent Assistance.

[4] Submission No.894, p.26 (DHFS); Economic Planning Advisory Commission, Future child Care Provision in Australia, Final Report, November 1996, AGPS, p.41.

[5] Submission No.407, pp.2-4 (WAA); Submission No.425, p.1 (Australian Family Association).

[6] Submission No.407, p.4 (WAA).

[7] Submission No.891, p.12 (ACOSS).

[8] Submission No.449, p.11(Labor Council of NSW).

[9] Submission No.724, p.6 (AFA-NSW Branch); Submission No.390, p.2 (Presbyterian Women's Association of Australia in NSW). See also Committee Hansard, 30.4.98, p.430.

[10] Submission No.724, p.6 (AFA-NSW Branch). See also Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, pp.267-68, 274.

[11] Submission No.407, pp.5-10 (WAA). See also Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, pp.101-111.

[12] Submission No.407, pp.5-6, 10 (WAA). See also Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.110.

[13] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.106.

[14] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, pp.101-11.

[15] Committee Hansard, 21.4.98, p.110. See also Submission No.407, p.6 (WAA).

[16] Submission No.502, p.8 (NACBCS); Submission No.465, p.22-23 (SDA); Submission No.517, p.9 (Community Child Care Association of Victoria).

[17] Economic Planning Advisory Commission, Future Child Care Provision in Australia, Task Force Final Report, AGPS, November 1996, p.45.

[18] EPAC, Final Report, p.45. See also J. Gifford, Child Care Funding Re-assessed, March 1992, p.35.

[19] EPAC, Final Report, p.45.

[20] Depending on income, FTI is available either as Family Tax Assistance, administered by the ATO or Family Tax Payment, administered by DSS.

[21] Submission No.894, pp.23,26 (DHFS); Submission No.407, p.3 (WAA).

[22] Submission No.894, p.23 (DHFS).

[23] NATSEM, The Changing Burden of Income Taxation on Working Families in Australia, April 1998, p.13.

[24] Submission No.517, p.8 (Community Child Care Association of Victoria); Submission No.440, p.6 (QCCC). See also Submission No.331, p.5; Submission No.836, p.12 (Child Care Centres Association of Victoria).

[25] Submission No.732, p.9 (ACSWC).

[26] Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, p.268.

[27] Submission No.533, p.8 (CCNA); Submission No.732, p.9 (ACSWC); Submission No.724, p.6 (AFA-NSW Branch); Submission No.912, p.6 (Queensland Government).

[28] Submission No.407, p.3 (WAA).

[29] Submission No.502, p.10 (NACBCS); EPAC, Final Report, pp.115-17.

[30] ATO, Media Release, 18.12.96; Taxation Ruling 96/27.

[31] Submission No.502, pp.10-11 (NACBCS).

[32] Submission No.894, p.25 (DHFS).

[33] EPAC, Final Report, p.116.

[34] Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS); Submission No.862, p.24 (NSW Government).

[35] Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS). See also Committee Hansard, 30.4.98, p.415.

[36] Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS).

[37] Submission No.894, p.25 (DHFS); Submission No.912, p.7 (Queensland Government); Submission No.517, p.11 (Community Child Care Association of Victoria).

[38] Submission No.533, p.10 (CCNA).

[39] Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS).

[40] Submission No.882, p.10 (Community Child Care Co-operation NSW); Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS).

[41] Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS). See also Submission No.862, p.24 (NSW Government).

[42] Submission No.891, p.14 (ACOSS); Submission No.862, p.24 (NSW Government).

[43] Submission No.862, p.24 (NSW Government).

[44] Submission No.502, p.11 (NACBCS).

[45] EPAC, Final Report, p.118.

[46] Submission No.732, pp.8-9 (ACSWC).

[47] Submission No.531, p.1 (Choice for Families National Association). See also Submission No.293, p.2 (Catholic Women's League–Warialda Branch).

[48] Committee Hansard, 29.4.98, p.389.

[49] Committee Hansard, 29.4.98, p.392.

[50] EPAC, Final Report, pp.19-20.

[51] EPAC, Final Report, p.20. See also Committee Hansard, 29.4.98, pp.393-94.

[52] NATSEM study cited in Submission No.449, p.11. See also Submission No.862, p.23 (NSW Government).

[53] Submission No.407, p.2 (WAA); Submission No.724, pp.5-6 (AFA–NSW Branch).

[54] Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, p.266.

[55] See Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, pp.273-74.

[56] Submission No.724, p.7 (AFA–NSW Branch); Submission No.531, p.2 (Choice for Families National Association). See also Submission No.5, p.2 (Institute of Men's Studies); Submission No.549, p.4 (Northmead Baptist Child Care Centre); Submission No.461, p.1 (AFA–ACT Branch); Submission No.541, p.1 (AFA–Townsville Branch); Submission No.355, p.2 (Endeavour Forum Inc–Victorian Committee); Submission No.372, p.3 (Lutheran Church of Australia).

[57] Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, pp.267-8.

[58] Submission No.407, p.10 (WAA); Submission No.724, p.7 (AFA–NSW Branch); Submission No.732, p.9 (ACSWC).

[59] Submission No.732, p.9 (ACSWC).

[60] Submission No.891, pp.12-3 (ACOSS); Submission No.882, p.8 (Uniting Community Services Australia).

[61] Submission No.891, p.6 (ACOSS).

[62] Submission No.533, p.8 (CCNA); Submission No.331, p.5 (Association of Child Care Centres of SA); Submission No.502, p.9 (NACBCS).

[63] Submission No.891, p.7 (ACOSS).

[64] Submission No.894, p.17 (DHFS).

[65] EPAC, Final Report, p.46.

[66] Submission No.891, p.6 (ACOSS)

[67] Submission No.894, Additional Information, 5.6.98, p.2 (DHFS).

[68] Committee Hansard, 22.4.98, pp.128,132; Committee Hansard, 22.4.98, p.197; Committee Hansard, 23.4.98, p.227; Submission No.566, p.12 (ACTU); Submission No.891, pp.13.-14 (ACOSS); Submission No.502, p.9 (NACBCS); Submission No.440, pp.7-8 (QCCC); Submission No.465, pp.23-24 (SDA).

[69] Submission No.502, p.9 (NACBCS).

[70] Committee Hansard, 22.4.98, p.132.

[71] Submission No.566, p.12 (ACTU).

[72] Submission No.882, p.9 (Uniting Community Services Australia).

[73] Submission No.502, p.9 (NACBCS).

[74] Submission No.440, Attachment 4 (QCCC).

[75] Submission No.863, pp.1-3 (Families at Work).

[76] Submission No.418, Appendix 1 (NCOSS).

[77] Submission No.894, p.11 (DHFS).

[78] Committee Hansard, 22.4.98, p.128; Submission No.905, p.6 (SA Government).

[79] Submission No.905, p.6 (SA Government).

[80] Submission No.912, p.6 (Queensland Government).

[81] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, pp.627-28. See also Submission No.894, p.24 (DHFS).

[82] Submission No.876, p.1 (OSW). See also Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, pp.615-16, 622-24.

[83] Submission No.894, p.24 (DHFS), Appendix 10; Additional Information, 28.7.98, Appendix B.

[84] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, p.619.

[85] See also Submission No.894, Additional Information, 28.7.98, Attachment A (DHFS).

[86] Submission No.440, p.7 (QCCC); Submission No.449, p.9 (Labor Council of NSW). See also Committee Hansard, 22.4.98, p.132.

[87] Submission No.440, p.7 (QCCC).

[88] Submission No.876, p.3 (OSW).

[89] Submission No.891, p.14 (ACOSS).

[90] Submission No.905, p.6 (SA Government).

[91] The ABS defines `persons not in the labour force for childcare reasons who wanted to work' as persons who wanted to work and were not looking for work due to childcare reasons, but were available to start work within four weeks or were not actively looking for work and were not available to start work within four weeks for childcare reasons. See ABS, Persons Not in the Labour Force, September 1997, p.37.

[92] ABS, Persons Not in the Labour Force, Cat. No. 6220.0, Table 8, September 1996, September1997.

[93] ABS, Persons Not in the Labour Force, September 1997, p.7.

[94] Submission No.894, p.24 (DHFS). See also Submission No.876, p.3 (OSW).

[95] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, pp.617-19; Submission No.876, p.3 (OSW).

[96] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, p.619.

[97] Committee Hansard, 25.6.98, p.620.

[98] Submission No.891, p.14 (ACOSS); Submission No.440, p.8 (QCCC); Submission No.331, p.6 (Association of Child Care Centres of SA).

[99] Submission No.882, p.10 (Uniting Community Services Australia).

[100] Submission No.891, p.14 (ACOSS); Submission No.912, p.6 (Queensland Government).

[101] Submission No.894, p.25 (DHFS).

[102] Submission No.891, p.14 (ACOSS).

[103] EPAC, Final Report, 1996, p.13.

[104] EPAC, ibid, p.13.

[105] Submission No.657, p.16 (Tufnell Child Care Centre).

[106] For example Submission Nos.413 (SA Child Care Coalition); 422 (NSW Children's Services Forum); 449 (Labor Council of NSW); 583 (Victorian Trades Hall Council); 566 (ACTU); 862 (NSW Government); 863 (Families at Work); 882 (Uniting Community Services Australia) and 891 (ACOSS).

[107] Submission No.731, p.6 (AECA).

[108] Tabled at hearing by NACBCS, 21 April 1998.

[109] Submission No.418, Attachment (NCOSS).

[110] Submission No.589, Annexure A. Surveys conducted by State Branches of the LHMU are also annexed to this submission. The ASU also surveyed child care workers, centre coordinators and parents on the impact of changes in local government sponsored child care centres in 4 States – see Submission No.653, pp.30-53 (Australian Services Union).

[111] Submission No.440, Attachment 4 (QCCC).

[112] Submission No.888, p.3 (SA Association of Community Based Child Care Centres).

[113] Submission No.589, p.10 (LHMU); Submission No.593, p.12 (LHMU–Victorian Branch); Submission No.594, p.18 (LHMU–WA Branch); Submission No.878, p.3 (NSW/ACT Independent Education Union).

[114] Submission No.592, pp.6-7 (LHMU–SA Branch); Submission No.656, pp.5-6 (Creche & Kindergarten Association of Queensland).

[115] Submission No.894, p.25 (DHFS).

[116] Submission No.653, p.24 (Australian Services Union); Submission No.878, p.3 (NSW/ACT Independent Education Union); Submission No.906, p.12 (Campbelltown City Council).

[117] Submission No.592, p.6 (LHMU–SA Branch); Submission No.653, p.21 (Australian Services Union).

[118] Submission No.440, p.9 (QCCC); Submission No.466, p.7; Submission No.542 (Childcare Industry Association of Queensland), p.20.

[119] Submission No.316, p.9 (Fairfield City Council); Submission No.887, p.7 (Community Child Care Co-operation NSW).

[120] For example Submission No.315, p.13 (YMCA of Australia Child Care Network); Submission No.331, p.7 (Association of Child Care Centres of SA); Submission No.415, p.11 (Queensland Churches in Child Care); Submission No.466, p.7 (AFCCA); Submission No.538, p.10 (James Cook University of North Queensland Union); Submission No.656, p.3 (Creche & Kindergarten Association of Queensland); Submission No.731, p.17 (AECA); Submission No.812, p.5 (UTS Child Care Inc).

[121] Submission No.762, p.3 (Institute of Early Childhood–Macquarie University).

[122] Submission No.117, p.2 (Ms E Close); Submission No.326, p.2 (Treloar House); Submission No.864, p.16 (Ms M Anwyl MLA).

[123] Submission No.403, p.2 (Conyngham Street Child Care Centre); Submission No.446, p.2 (Free Kindergarten Association of Victoria); Submission No.656, p.8; Submission No.833, p.13 (Penrith City Council).

[124] Submission No.881, p.17 (NT Health Services).

[125] Submission No.656, p.9-10 (Creche & Kindergarten Association of Queensland); Submission No.833, p.12 (Penrith City Council).

[126] Submission No.565, p.2 (Emu Heights Day Care Centre).

[127] Submission No.374, p.7 (Multicultural Child Care Unit); Submission No.592, p.8 (LHMU–SA Branch); Submission No.833, p.12(Penrith City Council).

[128] Submission No.677, p.5 (Ms T Hutchins); Submission No.898, p.3 (Carewest).

[129] Submission No.594, p.17 (LHMU–WA Branch).

[130] Submission No.664, p.12 (City of Darebin). This sentiment was expressed in many other submissions.

[131] Submission No.542, p.19 (Childcare Industry Association of Queensland). See also Submission Nos.49 (Ms A Kalamboyias), 109 (Ms K Gustafsson), 145 (Ms R Valeri), 168 (Ms B O'Toole), 180 (Miss S McPherson), 186 (Ms C Kelly).

[132] Submission No.468, p.2 (Victorian TAFE Childcare Course Managers); Submission No.677, p.7 (Ms T Hutchins).

[133] Submission No.881, p.17 (NT Health Services).

[134] Submission No.664, p.13 (City of Darebin).