Extract from the WEEKLY HOUSE HANSARD Database Date: 5 November 1996 (17:30)
Ms HANSON (Oxley) (5.30 p.m.)--"I wish to remind the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) of his commitment when in opposition to continue adequate, affordable, available child-care facilities for Australian families. Child care has become a lucrative thriving business in Australia. The majority of the cost, 60 per cent or $1.5 billion, is met by governments. Of this, in 1995-96, $1.1 billion was Commonwealth government funding."
"In 1983 there were 46,000 Commonwealth supported child-care places. The number of Commonwealth assisted places already exceeds the target of 300,000 set for June 1997 and further expansion is expected. This expansion is under severe threat thanks to proposed budget cuts. Thanks to these cuts, the creation of additional places to meet the ever increasing demand for child care is unlikely. What of the commitment to the continuation of adequate, affordable, available child-care facilities for Australian families?"
"Community based long day care centres are non-profit centres. Centres in my electorate are normally administered by a committee made up of parents and other members of the community. This is of great benefit for all those involved--the children, the parents, the community and the centre. The big plus is, I believe, the ability of a centre run this way to be more responsive to the needs of those involved. The provision of the opportunity for parents to be so involved in decisions affecting the care of their children is of great comfort. Let us face it: most parents would prefer their children to be cared for in the home. It is a sad indictment of our society that these days, if a family wants to get ahead, it is often necessary for both mother and father to go out to work."
"Operational subsidies are targeted for removal from 1 July 1997 for community based long day care centres. This subsidy is paid by the government to these centres which are owned and operated by the community on a non-profit basis. Many of these centres in my electorate of Oxley have operated for more than 20 years. Subsidies have given these community based organisations the financial help they have needed to continue to provide a service for the thousands of children who attend them. The continued viability of these centres is questionable if the removal of the operational subsidy goes ahead. Without the subsidy, some families will have to find at least another $15 to $20 a week for child care. To many Australian families who are already battling to find the money to pay the bills, this will be the last straw."
"Operational subsidies cost the government $137 million in the 1995-96 budget. This was paid to the community based long day care centres and family day care centres. Under the present proposal, long day care centres will lose their subsidy as of 1 July 1997. Unfortunately, this loss will mean that the price of care will have to increase by the amount of the subsidy withdrawn. This could ultimately bring about the closure of some centres. "
"This operational subsidy was introduced to encourage the provision of quality child care in those areas shunned by the private child-care sector. Why? Because these operators prefer to set up centres only in economically viable areas. Operational subsidies received by the long day care community centres help to offset the expense of operating in rural and remote areas. Operational subsidies mean that long day care centres can offer a high standard of quality care to children who because of their age--many of them are under two years--need special care and attention. This care and attention is simply not provided by the private sector."
"The removal of this operational subsidy will mean that the supply of quality, affordable child care will gradually become a thing of the past and that low income earners will be forced into accepting substandard child care. In some cases, they will simply give up. The loss of this subsidy could see a reduction in the quality of child care overall. "
"Child-care assistance is another subsidy paid by the government to aid low income families. This subsidy cost the government $745 million in 1995-96 and will cost $850 million in 1996-97. This subsidy is also available to sole non-working parents for up to 50 hours per week. The government will pay a maximum subsidy of 84 per cent for one child and 91 per cent for two dependent children. "
"I consider this proposal, which allows for 50 hours support per week for non-working sole parents, a slap in the face for the married parent who, I am sure, would also dearly love to have 84 per cent of their child-care expenses paid for by the taxpayer. I have no objection to single mothers having 50 hours of child-care support provided they are in full-time employment. I believe it is counterproductive to be providing support and encouragement to those who are not in employment."
"Being a single mum, I can appreciate being able to have a break from your children, but 50 hours a week is only releasing sole non-working parents from their responsibilities to care for their own children by allowing them to leave their children in child care at the expense of the taxpayer. People will argue that they may need the time to search for work or to attend training programs. Even so, the average working week is 40 hours. Isn't it in the child's best interest to be with the parent, especially when they are under school age?"
"Provide care by all means, but 12 hours per week for non-working sole parents is enough of a burden on the taxpayer. The saving from this would enable the government to retain operational subsidy to long day care centres. This would benefit the community, employment and those parents who are trying to keep their heads above water. It would also mean that in some cases working mums would not be forced into a situation where they will have to give up their jobs and get back on to the social security roundabout."
"Child-care assistance and the child-care cash rebate will be paid by a new Commonwealth service delivery agency from 1 January 1998. At that time families will be given the choice of receiving their child-care payments directly or having them paid to their approved child-care service. Parents and providers will benefit from a streamlined system involving one agency and a significant reduction in red tape."
"After speaking to a large number of long day care and family day care providers--the people who deal in the industry daily--it is obvious that they are appalled by the government's proposal to pay parents directly. This, I believe, will leave the door wide open for the system to be abused and some parents using the money for purposes other than intended. Thus, children will not be receiving the child-care services, employment will suffer and the taxpayer, again, will be taken for a ride. "
"The government cannot afford to shirk its responsibilities to the taxpayer by passing the buck and saying that it is cutting red tape. We must be fair when making decisions. How can the child-care proposal in its present form be considered fair when, again, the average Australian battlers will be the hardest hit?"
Return to Speeches Menu