Division
Sarah Hanson-Young I would like to refer interested senators to the Greens amendment on sheet 8109. This is in relation to lifting the number of hours in the safety net from 12 to 15. We have heard consistently from the sector, the childcare providers as well as education experts, that we should not be reducing the number of hours available for vulnerable and low-income families, and children in particular. This safety net can only operate as a safety net if it indeed gives children the protection that ensures they are able to succeed and benefit from the care and educational experience and opportunities they are given. This amendment goes to put into practice the idea that two days of child care and early childhood education would be available to vulnerable and low-income families. These are families who do not meet the activity test for a variety of reasons. This might include single parent families or families where one parent is at home and not able to work or is transitioning through different work arrangements. I heard the minister in his speech just now trying to argue that 12 hours of care is sufficient, but it is just not. Currently, these families have access to 24 hours of care a week. The current bill, unless this amendment is accepted, would halve that access for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged families we have. I would like to keep it at 24 hours per week, but I am being realistic here tonight that there has been a lot of consultation and compromise from people on many fronts to accept that 15 hours would be the bare minimum. The rationale for 15 hours is that it is neatly split between two days, at 7½ hours per day, which ensures children can get the maximum benefit from that care. We also know that from a provider's perspective—that is, each individual childcare centre—that it is more realistic for them to be able to operate a system where they can provide 7½ hours of care each day, or 15 hours of care split evenly over two days. It mak
Senate, 2017-03-23. negative: ayes 27, noes 30.
Question
Sarah Hanson-Young I would like to refer interested senators to the Greens amendment on sheet 8109. This is in relation to lifting the number of hours in the safety net from 12 to 15. We have heard consistently from the sector, the childcare providers as well as education experts, that we should not be reducing the number of hours available for vulnerable and low-income families, and children in particular. This safety net can only operate as a safety net if it indeed gives children the protection that ensures they are able to succeed and benefit from the care and educational experience and opportunities they are given. This amendment goes to put into practice the idea that two days of child care and early childhood education would be available to vulnerable and low-income families. These are families who do not meet the activity test for a variety of reasons. This might include single parent families or families where one parent is at home and not able to work or is transitioning through different work arrangements. I heard the minister in his speech just now trying to argue that 12 hours of care is sufficient, but it is just not. Currently, these families have access to 24 hours of care a week. The current bill, unless this amendment is accepted, would halve that access for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged families we have. I would like to keep it at 24 hours per week, but I am being realistic here tonight that there has been a lot of consultation and compromise from people on many fronts to accept that 15 hours would be the bare minimum. The rationale for 15 hours is that it is neatly split between two days, at 7½ hours per day, which ensures children can get the maximum benefit from that care. We also know that from a provider's perspective—that is, each individual childcare centre—that it is more realistic for them to be able to operate a system where they can provide 7½ hours of care each day, or 15 hours of care split evenly over two days. It mak
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.