Mr PETER MORRIS(10.09 p.m.) —The Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1996, which is before us, proposes the implementation of the following budget related measures. It proposes to discontinue the operational subsidy to community based long day care centres, to take effect from 1 July next year. Let me reiterate that long day care centres are centres that are open for at least eight hours a day during normal working days—that is, from Monday to Friday—and operate for at least 48 weeks of the year. The next measure is to reduce the child-care cash rebate from 30 per cent to 20 per cent for families with a taxable income in the current year lower than the family income cut-offs for part A of the family tax initiative, and that is currently $70,000 per annum for a family with one child.

Community based long day care centres are the non-profit centres, as other speakers have said earlier in this debate. They are usually operated by a local government authority, a community organisation or a religious or charitable organisation. The centres themselves, particularly in my electorate, are normally administered by a management committee consisting of parents and other members of the community.

This method has benefits for the children, the community and the parents. The centres, I believe, are more responsive to the needs of the children and parents, with the parents being able to experience and observe the effects of any decisions they make or participate in. Again, it provides the opportunity for greater input by parents into decisions that can create a better level of satisfaction with the results of those decisions.

I turn now to the budget cuts and the changes in the budget. This budget cuts a total of $504 million from child care over the next four years. It will add between $14 and $20 a week to a parent's child-care costs in community based centres. That will take time to work through. This is a very clever budget. The cuts and the damage in the budget are cleverly staged but, nevertheless, they will hit. It is simply a matter of time as they work through.

The cuts take a variety of forms and include cuts to operating subsidies of $118.4 million over three years, benefits paid to families limited to 50 hours per week and reduced for second and subsequent children and, finally, a freeze being placed on the upper limit of benefits for the next two years. Community child care has carried a greater share of the more expensive areas of child care—that is, the care of the under two-year-olds, the disabled and the at-risk children. That is a fact that is readily acknowledged by everybody who is in any way involved with the child-care industry.

The removal of the operating subsidies to community child care attacks its future viability. Many community based organisations will not consider it feasible to continue operating a long day care centre without an operational subsidy. Remember, these are community based organisations and I have outlined the kinds of organisations that sponsor the formation of these centres.

In my own electorate, it took quite some time for the councils, particularly the Lake Macquarie City Council, to become involved, to devote resources and to set aside a share of their annual fiscal resources to the operation of these centres. But, having done that, now the goalposts are being changed. The dilemma facing the councils will be how much of their resources they are prepared to devote to this area of activity, to this area of care.

The centres themselves are sometimes the only option for people living in regional or remote areas who need child care. We have heard that fact from the two previous speakers—one an Independent and the other a member of the government. The decline in the competitive role of community child care within the sector also means there is a greater chance of unchecked fee increases. One can argue very easily, as is apparent to many people, that removing the operational subsidy and thus forcing up the revenue that has to be raised by the centre itself indirectly forces them to increase their fees. It also indirectly makes it easier for the privately operated centres to compete with the community based centres regardless of the quality of service they are providing or of the segment of the market they are catering to.

Operational subsidies for community based long day care centres subsidise the cost of care for children who are expensive to care for, especially babies and children with special needs. The abolition of operational subsidies to these centres means that centres will have to charge higher fees—the fact I have just referred to—as much as $21 a week for a child under the age of three and $14 a week for a child aged three and over.

It is all very well for government speakers and the minister to come back and produce some itemised amounts and present some hypothetical circumstances—they may or they may not—but inevitably the costs to parents who currently use these centres will rise if they are able to afford to keep their children there. That will happen, but it will also depend on whether the centre wants to continue caring for those children and babies with special needs.

The Howard government has said that it will provide a certain amount of money to help centres remain open in severely disadvantaged areas. But operators say that it will not be enough and that they will have to pass the cost on to parents. I come back to that point again: what this is about is pushing up the costs for parents who currently use those community based child-care centres.

The child-care cash rebate has been means tested. If you do not qualify for the family tax initiative, the rebate will be cut from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. So the rebate has been cut by some $34.7 million. The introduction of the child-care cash rebate by the Labor government recognised child-care costs as a work related expense. It recognised that child-care costs can be a significant disincentive for women thinking about taking up employment. Like other tax concessions for work related expenses, the rebate was not means tested.

So, despite their promise not to means test the child-care cash rebate, the Howard government is in the process of imposing a means test on it. We are almost seeing a continuing cycle of broken promises. In each item that comes before the parliament, we are dealing with what this government promised in opposition and the alternative—what it is doing now in breaking those promises.

Changes to the income test for child-care assistance mean that all parents will pay more for child care. The Howard government's so-called family budget cuts $282 million from child-care assistance. When we look at this in more detail, we see that 27,000 families will not get access to child-care assistance for more than 50 hours per week per child; 198,000 families will lose child-care assistance from tightening the definition of income for assessing eligibility; 30,000 families lose from the reduction in the income cut-offs for families with two or more children in care; and 650 families will get less help because of the inclusion of additional fringe benefits in the income test.

So the budget freezes the child-care assistance and child-care cash rebate ceilings for two years, while allowing the minimum fee to continue to rise. The combined effect of this set of measures is that some 330,000 families expected to qualify for child-care assistance in 1996-97 will have higher out-of-pocket child-care expenses averaging about $4.25 per week. So, far from maintaining the level of child-care assistance, what is happening is that 330,000 families in this current year are going to be worse off to varying degrees.

The 5,500 planned community based long day care places, worth $79.4 million, will not be built. In some parts of Australia, there are drastic shortages of long day care places. The coalition promised to support the creation of additional places to meet the unmet demand for child care. But, because of this budget, long day care places planned to be built between now and the year 2000 will not go ahead, making it even more difficult to get quality, affordable care.

I heard one of the speakers in the parliament last week say that there is that core of opinion over there in government ranks, and it is really reflected in the view of the Prime Minister, that the place of women is to be barefooted, pregnant and in the kitchen in a single income family. I repeat to this parliament: the Prime Minister cannot go back to his mother's world.

Mr Lloyd interjecting—

Mr PETER MORRIS —He cannot recreate his mother's world, I say to the honourable member for Robertson. Much as he hungers for it and yearns for it, that penchant he has for the past, there is no turning back the clock. But he can go on, and you will labour on and go like the lemmings following him until you come up against that hard reaction of the community.

Dr Wooldridge —Like Lindsay.

Mr PETER MORRIS —You can brag and crow, but I will have the last laugh, let me tell you that. I will enjoy it very much, and that smirk will go right off your face. Whilst you can, enjoy yourself. But I can tell you that it is transitory.

Mr Lloyd —You will be waiting a long time.

Mr PETER MORRIS —I will not be waiting that long. You are here for a short while. Enjoy yourself while you are here, my dear friend. Mr Deputy Speaker, with the minister on one hand and the member for Robertson on the other interjecting, are you going to offer me some protection, or shall I continue?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sure you do not need my protection. Just ignore them and address your remarks through the chair.

Mr PETER MORRIS —I am endeavouring to do it, but those remarks that I had to respond to were not through the chair. I look to you always for protection, you know that.

Let me refer to the petitions that I presented to this House on 10 October in respect of a Belmont community child-care centre. That petition objects to the removal of operational subsidies. All of this is in the Hansard. The petition reads:

We request the House support the retention of operational subsidies to community based (not for profit) long day care centres and that community based . . . child care continue to be valued and supported as a lower cost, high quality child care alternative for working parents.

Let me conclude, because we have to limit our time. I want to quote from two letters from my constituents. One is from a mother and father who use the Marks Point child-care centre in my electorate. Dennis Benson, in his letter to me, said:

I have found that the Marks Point After School Care is one of the best run units in Australia. They are very positive in there attitude and response to the needs of the parents and children.

I have found that when money is involved in the private sector, the children's needs are considered a long last in the list of priorities. This I have experienced first hand as I have had a number of moves in my Business Career both Interstate and Locally.

He concludes:

As a responsible parent who cares about the overall Welfare of our Children do not destroy this vital part of our society.

Mrs K. Kerr, of 1 View Street, Belmont, in her letter, says:

I am a working mother of 3 girls and I write (late at night!) with concern over suggested changes to the Childcare Assistance Scheme and operational subsidy to child care centres.

My decision to work is based partly on financial needs—my husband works—but also on my needs as a person and on the future needs of our family. My work is an important part of my life. It is who and what I am.

So, as I said, the Prime Minister cannot go back to his mother's world. The world has moved on, and Mrs Kerr's letter very much underlines that. So I strongly support the amendment in relation to the second reading that has been moved by the shadow minister. I commend the amendment to the House.