Mr STIRLING - 1996-10-08
In defending the federal Coalition government's cuts to child-care funding, the minister said on ABC radio on 28 August: `In the future, if you want the best standard of child care, you will have to pay more for it'. He went on to argue for the introduction of what he described as Holden, Fairlane or Rolls Royce standards of child care. Is he telling the working families of the Northern Territory that the children of the rich will get Rolls Royce care but working families will have to settle for the Holden? Or is he telling Territory families that one of the parents should quit work?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, what I will tell working families in the Northern Territory is that we will not propagate myths. There is another myth. It is that child care is the responsibility of the government and that child care will be provided endlessly, based on what is clearly an ever-increasing demand. If we persist with placing that sort of demand on government, the problem will be driven more and more underground. In today's NT News, there is a classic example of what I am saying. Children are being foisted on neighbours in unregistered family day care. There was the case of an unregistered carer who had some 10 children in her house in Sydney. A 2-year-old was drowned in the bathtub. That will be the end result of child care in Australia if we persist in telling the Australian public and Territorians that there is a standard that we will meet at all times, and we fail to address what are ...
Mr Bailey: Territorians drive Holdens. Ministers drive Fairlanes and Rolls Royces.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is once again trying my patience beyond belief. I am not prepared to tolerate it for very much longer. If he continues in this vein, he will be named.
Mr BURKE: There are some practical options which can meet national benchmarks in child care. Under no circumstances would this or any other government go below national benchmarks. However, we have to address the fact that community long day-care centres, for example, funded primarily by the government, will no longer be able to meet the need. That is something that the Commonwealth government is recognising and addressing, and something
Page 1628
that I support. The reality is that the child-care business market for private investors is not good. There is no encouragement for them to be involved. I believe there are avenues whereby we can encourage private enterprise to become more involved and, at the same time, meet the needs of people who require that type of care.
Some operators of community long day-care centres are saying that, unless they have centralised centres with some 75 places, the operation is not economically viable. If that is the only model that the Labor Party agrees with, it can go right ahead. However, I will say on the record that that will not meet the need. More and more children will be foisted on neighbours in unregistered care and in dangerous care. I have suggested that we look at the problem and recognise that there are options. First of all, incentives for private providers have to be improved. The reality is that community long day- care centres, that already receive federal and Territory government subsidies, are no more than about $4 to $5 cheaper, on average, than private day-care centres. That is simply not good enough. They have to become more efficient. We need to provide incentives for the private market to become involved and allow the parents to decide where they want to put their children. Parents will make the decision. If parents want to pay more for child care, they will pay more. If other parents want to pay less, they will pay less. It is not a matter of rich or poor; it is a matter of choice. In the member for Nelson's electorate, there are people who could afford expensive child care who are quite comfortable with a child-care provider there who is meeting the need for what they perceive to be good child care for their children. People will make the choice, at the end of the day.
I am saying that, as a government, we can look for other models. One such model is what could be classed as a small child-care centre. I believe there are avenues there for private enterprise. For example, a parent who could afford to employ a registered nurse could meet national standards for a child-care centre of up to, say, 15 places. With proper assistance from my department, I believe that is one model that could be used in the future. If members opposite want to describe that as rich or poor, Holden or Rolls Royce, let them do so. My only interest is to ensure that people who need child care have access to safe and adequate child care that meets the national standards.
Page 1629
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, what I will tell working families in the Northern Territory is that we will not propagate myths. There is another myth. It is that child care is the responsibility of the government and that child care will be provided endlessly, based on what is clearly an ever-increasing demand. If we persist with placing that sort of demand on government, the problem will be driven more and more underground. In today's NT News, there is a classic example of what I am saying. Children are being foisted on neighbours in unregistered family day care. There was the case of an unregistered carer who had some 10 children in her house in Sydney. A 2-year-old was drowned in the bathtub. That will be the end result of child care in Australia if we persist in telling the Australian public and Territorians that there is a standard that we will meet at all times, and we fail to address what are ...
Mr Bailey: Territorians drive Holdens. Ministers drive Fairlanes and Rolls Royces.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is once again trying my patience beyond belief. I am not prepared to tolerate it for very much longer. If he continues in this vein, he will be named.
Mr BURKE: There are some practical options which can meet national benchmarks in child care. Under no circumstances would this or any other government go below national benchmarks. However, we have to address the fact that community long day-care centres, for example, funded primarily by the government, will no longer be able to meet the need. That is something that the Commonwealth government is recognising and addressing, and something
Page 1628
that I support. The reality is that the child-care business market for private investors is not good. There is no encouragement for them to be involved. I believe there are avenues whereby we can encourage private enterprise to become more involved and, at the same time, meet the needs of people who require that type of care.
Some operators of community long day-care centres are saying that, unless they have centralised centres with some 75 places, the operation is not economically viable. If that is the only model that the Labor Party agrees with, it can go right ahead. However, I will say on the record that that will not meet the need. More and more children will be foisted on neighbours in unregistered care and in dangerous care. I have suggested that we look at the problem and recognise that there are options. First of all, incentives for private providers have to be improved. The reality is that community long day- care centres, that already receive federal and Territory government subsidies, are no more than about $4 to $5 cheaper, on average, than private day-care centres. That is simply not good enough. They have to become more efficient. We need to provide incentives for the private market to become involved and allow the parents to decide where they want to put their children. Parents will make the decision. If parents want to pay more for child care, they will pay more. If other parents want to pay less, they will pay less. It is not a matter of rich or poor; it is a matter of choice. In the member for Nelson's electorate, there are people who could afford expensive child care who are quite comfortable with a child-care provider there who is meeting the need for what they perceive to be good child care for their children. People will make the choice, at the end of the day.
I am saying that, as a government, we can look for other models. One such model is what could be classed as a small child-care centre. I believe there are avenues there for private enterprise. For example, a parent who could afford to employ a registered nurse could meet national standards for a child-care centre of up to, say, 15 places. With proper assistance from my department, I believe that is one model that could be used in the future. If members opposite want to describe that as rich or poor, Holden or Rolls Royce, let them do so. My only interest is to ensure that people who need child care have access to safe and adequate child care that meets the national standards.
Page 1629
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016