I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) Bill.
In December 2009 COAG endorsed the National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care. I note from item 11 of that agreement that it commenced as soon as the Commonwealth and one other party signed the agreement and will expire on 30 June 2013, or earlier termination as agreed in writing by the parties. 30 June 2013 is a little over a year and a half away. The agreement also states that—
The universal access commitment is that by 2013 every child will have access to a preschool program in the 12 months prior to full-time schooling. The preschool program is to be delivered by a four year university qualified early childhood teacher, in accordance with a national early years learning framework, for 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year.
At this point, I feel it necessary to detail the agreement’s interpretation of what constitutes ‘universal access’. Within the agreement, universal access is interpreted as follows—
Whereby every child, 12 months prior to full time schooling, has access to a preschool program delivered: By a four year university qualified early childhood teacher (subject to clause 17 below); in accordance with a national early years learning framework; for 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year; across a diversity of settings; in a form that meets the needs of parents; and at a cost that does not present a barrier to participation.
The notes accompanying this bill state—Funding from the Australian Government under the National Partnership Agreement is not expected to fully meet the government’s costs of implementing the National Quality Framework in Queensland. DET will draw on existing resources to reduce the cost of implementing the National Quality Framework in 2010-11 and 2011-12, and will absorb any recurrent shortfall in national funding from 2012-13.
Remembering that the COAG agreement tells us that the scheme must be ‘at a cost that does not present a barrier to participation’, page 37 of the Productivity Commission report states—
ECEC fees are expected to increase as a result of implementing the NQA requirements, as well as ongoing cost rises. Services are expected to pass the increase in costs on to users in the form of higher fees ... The increase in fees may have substantial effects on disadvantaged families—
And we need to remember that point—
—who may benefit most from ECEC, but are also most likely to withdraw their children from ECEC services as a result of fee increases.
The LNP undertook extensive consultation with the education and child-care industry. All the stakeholders agreed that the most important phase of a child’s learning is carried out during the early years. The industry indicated, just as the Productivity Commission did, that there is likely to be a very severe effect on costs which would no doubt be passed on in increases to parent fees. In the majority of cases, they believe it will be substantially more than the $1,500 a year that the government has already conceded it will cost additional for each child. One child-care facility has conducted its own research.
It believes the current daily fee of $70 will rise by $4 per day on 1 January next year. It also anticipates another rise of $10 a day two years later on 1 January 2014. Those increases to fees will be solely as a result of these changes. That is a 20 per cent rise in fees. That view is consistent with figures from other stakeholders. We must remember that those increases will occur over and above those of normal inflation, which tends to run parallel with the CPI.
Therefore, just doing some basic maths, if CPI runs at 10 per cent over the course of the three years from 2012 to 2014, parents will be looking down the barrel at an increase in their fees from $70 a day to more than $90 per day.
With respect to the teacher to child ratios, the Productivity Commission report states—
To meet the targets specified in the reforms, more workers will be required, and the average level of workers’ qualifications will need to increase. The wages of workers in most early childhood education and care employment categories will need to rise because of these factors, and the need to match wage relativities with the primary school sector for teachers.
The report continues—
The supply of suitably qualified workers is likely to take some time to respond, and exemptions from the new standards... will be required. Government timelines for reform appear optimistic.
This fact was borne out in the course of our consultation. It is believed that the greatest impact on costs within the industry will be the alterations to teacher to child ratios. This results in a substantial reduction in the number of children most centres can enrol, while at the same time increasing labour costs through increased staffing.
In a best case scenario the rebates available through either the child-care benefit or the child-care rebate from the Commonwealth would see parents being slugged with an extra $1,500 in fees for every child and receiving federal government assistance of $750. Again, it is an absolute best case scenario that parents will be out of pocket only $750 per child as a result of these changes. However, in a lot of cases, this amount is expected to be far greater.
Let us not forget that the child-care benefit has been reduced by this Labor federal government, and Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are absolutely silent on the issue of increasing the benefit to compensate for these changes. In fact, only last week we heard Wayne Swan hint at taking a razor to the next budget because his promise to get the budget back into surplus in 2012-13 looks very dicey.
In some centres that the LNP consulted up to 70 per cent of the parents are unable to qualify for the child-care benefit because of the income test. In some areas of regional Queensland, daily fees for child care can be $90 to $100. The proposed changes apply to kindergartens as well. So kindergartens currently employing two teachers for 24 students will now only be able to take 22 students. Quite a number of these kindergartens are under financial pressure.
No doubt an increase in labour costs may threaten the survival of those kindergartens. This applies right throughout the regional areas and I think we need to look at it very closely. It is worth noting that this particular group of children is the same age group who, by law, must have one teacher to 11 students as proposed by this bill. However, they can enter a government prep class with between 25 and 30 students with just one teacher. Amazing!
We are mindful that there is virtually unanimous support for the strictest of quality controls in child care and early childhood education. However, the increased fees forced upon parents will limit their access to early child care and education, and this flies in the face of the interpretation of the ‘universal access’ commitment of the COAG agreement. There is even a likelihood that some parents may have to leave the workforce in order to care for their children.
The LNP’s position, stated by the shadow minister, is to defer the ratio increases for existing centres until 2020. These increases would apply to newly constructed centres. Where centres undergo major refurbishments which require that they renew their licence, the new ratios will also apply. In government we would review the progress being made on upskilling the workforce and on the attitude to the government’s foreshadowed policy of providing ‘waivers’ where staff is not currently available.
In closing, I want to congratulate the members of the Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee. I thank each one for their hard work as well as the chairperson, who did an excellent job. In particular, I wish to congratulate the shadow minister on his research and other work he performed in responding to this bill. I believe Mr Flegg did an outstanding job and I think the whole committee, working together, has come up with a reasonably good solution. I think the minister is trying to do the best he can with a bill that is very difficult to work with.
We must not forget the impact on parents in Queensland because they are doing it really tough at the moment, and nobody in this room would deny that. The cost of living is going through the roof and the imposition on their ability to pay more for child care is going to make things really difficult. If there is anybody in this room who wants to deny that, please put your hand up because I will tell them they are wrong.
I hope the minister will take some of these comments on board. He should listen to what the shadow minister has said because he has put forward some very good propositions. If those are taken on board, we will be making some good policy changes.