Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page
CHILD CARE MINORITY REPORT FROM SENATORS SUE KNOWLES AND MARISE PAYNE
While the Government Senators on the Committee agree with a number of
the recommendations, they consider it important to clarify much of what
was said or implied in the public hearings.
The hearings were unfortunately held in a pre-election climate whereby
many of the messages conveyed seemed to be designed to damage the Government
as opposed to expressing a view of child care based upon the facts.
Some examples of such views and claims are as follows:
- That the government sets the child care fees
- That government assistance has not kept up with the Consumer Price
Index and Average Weekly Earnings
- That the quality of care had been reduced
- That the Government has cut childcare allocations
- That there has been a marked reduction in female labour force participation
- That single parents are better off giving up work than paying for
child care
- That all closures were due to government cuts
- That the paperwork associated with administration of the 50 hour limit
is excessive
This list could be endless. We are reluctant to list further examples
in an effort to ensure that the distortions are not given further exposure
as they are, according to those in the industry, damaging the reputation
of centres and the excellent services they provide.
It is worth stating the facts according to the budget papers and the
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures:
The response point by point is as follows:
- Fees are NOT set by government. They are set by the Child Care centres.
- Government assistance has kept pace with the Consumer Price Index
and Average Weekly Earnings. Some centres, many in the community sector,
have increased their fees well above these indicators.
- No witness was able to provide empirical evidence of quality reduction
nor was a witness able to provide a list of centres that should close
due to quality reduction.
- Government Child Care allocations have continued to increase –
see appendix A.
- Female labour force participation has remained stable since March
1996 – see appendix B.
- Campaigns against the Government's administration of child care seem
to encourage many single parents to give up work on the basis that it
is not worth working and paying child care, as the net gain is minimal.
This too does not stand up to scrutiny as most will in fact be much
worse off by giving up work – see appendix C. [Word
Document]
- The vast majority of closures were due to oversupply in specific areas
thus making some centres not viable. This is largely a result of uncontrolled,
unplanned growth in the sector in the early 1990's. The Government's
National Planning Framework addresses many of these issues. All community
based centres were specifically offered assistance to restructure and
a vast majority have taken up that offer.
- The horror stories portrayed by Labor and some witnesses about the
extensive nature of the paperwork associated with accessing additional
hours beyond the 50 hour limit are hard to understand. The attached
form – see appendix D – is the actual
form required. It is one page and does not go into the personal details
described by some witnesses and implied by some Senators. – See
C.A. 336-337.
The Government Senators are, as stated earlier, in agreement with some
recommendations, but wish to elaborate on others or challenge the validity
of a few:
Chapter Four – Impact of changes to Child Care Funding on
Child Care Services
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;
The Government already provides substantial support for management, establishment
costs and upgrade programs for the various child care services. $6-7 million
has been spent to assist the Long Day Care sector over two years to cope
with the changes including the removal of the operational subsidy.
- Consideration should be given to expanding funding for restructuring
within the community-based sector; and
As above, substantial funding is available for assisting with the costs
related to industry restructuring. All community centres were specifically
offered assistance to restructure, and a vast majority have taken up that
offer, in the order of 90%.
- Funding be provided to develop innovative models of child care
based on the community development approach.
Again, substantial funding is available for the development of innovative
and flexible services including $10.9 million over four years for new
and expanding services in rural and remote areas, and $2.0 million for
remote families where mainstream models are not sustainable – see
appendix E. [Word Document]
- 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.
The Government has already initiated a review of charging practices and
should be reporting early in 1999.
- Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the 20 hour time
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.
This recommendation clearly illustrates the partisan political exercise
of the inquiry. The Labor Opposition had no interest in providing constructive
scrutiny of the Government's policy. The issue of a 20 hour limit for
non-work related child care has been the mainstay of the Opposition's
attacks on Government policy since its introduction, however in this report
they have concluded that that policy direction be retained. Further, the
report concludes that a 20 hour non-work related limit on child care is
adequate to meet the needs of Australian families.
- It is worth noting that when they were in Government the Labor Party's
Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1995 proposed a 12 hour per week
limit for assistance with long day care. This move was rejected by the
Coalition.
Out of school hours care
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that:
- Where OSHC services amalgamate or are established in a school central
to an area to ensure future viability, funding for travel between schools
and services be provided if sustainable transport arrangements already
exists. If no suitable travel arrangements are available, capital grants
be made available so that OSHC services may operate their own transport;
While it may be desirable and efficient to co-locate OSHC in schools,
the transport arrangements of children and students between schools and
child care services is a matter for families and carers.
- The Commonwealth seek the assistance of the States and Territories
to ensure that the OSHC services maintain access to school premises
free of charge or at a low or nominal fee; and
No evidence was provided that this is an issue requiring an institutionalised
arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories.
Family Day Care
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that given the important
role played by Family Day Care (FDC) in providing alternative care options
for families, the current arrangements for the provision of an operational
subsidy for FDC should continue.
The Departmental submission to the Committee confirms the Government's
ongoing commitment to the operational subsidy and states on page 15, “The
Government has no plans for the removal of operational subsidy” –
see also appendix F. [Word Document]
Chapter 5 – Impact of Child Care Funding Change on Families
and Children
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that urgent action be taken
to better target child care assistance to low income families, particularly
those with more than one child, by the introduction of a `top up' or supplement
to the current rate of Childcare Assistance.
Through its very nature, because the Childcare Assistance scheme is income
tested it does in itself target low income families over those with a
higher income.
Impact on children
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that the review of the Quality
Improvement and Accreditation System being undertaken by the Child Care
Advisory Council be completed as matter of priority.
The Council is due to report in early 1999.
Recommendation: The Committee recommends that additional funding be
provided to centres which cater for very high needs families in socially
or economically disadvantage urban areas.
Government Senators support the recommendation relating to additional
support for services in disadvantaged urban areas. We also note evidence
given to the Committee in relation to the difficulty faced by families
from Non-English speaking backgrounds in accessing and utilising appropriate
services. We would recommend that the Department provide as much information
as possible in community languages to promote access for Non-English Speaking
Background families.
Chapter Six – Other Matters: Taxation Issues, Workforce Participation
and Child Care Workers
Recommendations: 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.
The majority report itself expresses great reservations about this very
notion and it is difficult to understand its inclusion as a recommendation
from Opposition Senators. The report acknowledges that implementation
of a universal payment scheme could lead to the possibility that funds
would be spread too thinly across the potential target group (those on
lower incomes). Furthermore, the report says “the Committee would
be concerned if the introduction of the 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”.
Conclusion
The government Senators can only restate that this whole inquiry has
been a gross waste of taxpayer's money that could have well been spent
on areas of community need instead of engineering a purely political pre-election
exercise.
As noted in both evidence and in this report, the Government has been
increasing spending, not reducing it, assistance has kept pace with the
Consumer Price Index and average weekly earnings and the standard of care
is of high quality. Efforts to generate adverse publicity that damages
the industry will eventually have a long term detrimental impact on the
sector if they are continued.
The industry should be supported and parents should feel confident about
sending their children to both community and private child care centres
and the Government initiatives to better target taxpayer assistance should
be applauded.
Senator Sue Knowles
(LP, Western Australia)
Senator Marise Payne
(LP, New South Wales)
Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page