|
senate vote 2024-11-26#25
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-12-07 11:05:47
|
Title
Bills — Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024; in Committee- Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 - in Committee - Increase wage rise to 25%
Description
<p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>by leave—I move my amendments on sheets 3147, 3112 and 3100 together:</p>-
- The majority voted against [Greens amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-11-26.318.1), which were introduced by Victorian Senator [Steph Hodgins-May](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/steph_hodgins-may) (Greens). The amendments would have increased the wage increase to 25%.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 11, page 6 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(a) include provisions to permit amounts paid to the recipient under the grant to be used in relation to the remuneration of workers, who are within a class specified in the agreement for this purpose, that is at least 25% above the worker's current remuneration; and*
<p class="italic">SHEET 3112</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (2), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a grant under that subsection may be made by way of:</p><p class="italic">(a) upfront payment; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the reimbursement, or partial reimbursement, of costs or expenses.</p><p class="italic">_____</p><p class="italic">SHEET 3147 revised</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of <i>approved provider</i>, substitute:</p><p class="italic"><i>approved provider</i> means:</p><p class="italic">(a) an approved provider within the meaning of the <i>A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999</i>; or</p><p class="italic">(b) a body that:</p><p class="italic">(i) provides an early childhood education program; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) is a kind of body that is known as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Organisation.</p><p class="italic">_____</p><p class="italic">SHEET 3100</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 10, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Criteria by which applications are to be considered</i></p><p class="italic">(5) The rules must prescribe the criteria by which applications for a grant under subsection (1) are to be considered.</p><p class="italic">(6) A grant under subsection (1) must not be made unless the Secretary is satisfied that the application for the grant meets the criteria specified in the rules for the purposes of subsection (5).</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>Thanks, Senator Thorpe, for moving these amendments together. Unfortunately, though, the government will not be agreeing to any of the three amendments. For sheet 3100, which is about guidelines, as Senator Thorpe is probably aware, it is common practice for grant eligibility criteria to be left to non-legislative guidance when establishing a special account to fund grants. The eligibility criteria for this payment are set out in the Early Childhood Education and Care Worker Retention Payment Grant Opportunity Guidelines, in accordance with the Commonwealth grants policy framework. The criteria have also been added as an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill. This approach gives the government the necessary flexibility to adjust eligibility if required, as the grant guidelines can be rapidly amended to respond to changing conditions and sector feedback.</p><p>For the amendment on sheet 3112 regarding upfront cash flow payments, again, the government will not be agreeing to this amendment. However, the senator raises an important matter, and steps have been taken to address cash flow concerns at the commencement of the grant period. In some circumstances, providers can receive an advanced payment in December. The government will also front-load funding in the first three-monthly grant payments to help centre based day care services that have viability concerns. These arrangements are reflected in the grant opportunity guidelines, along with all the other eligibility and payment details.</p><p>The government will also not be agreeing to the amendment on sheet 3147 regarding approved providers. Providers have to meet certain criteria to be approved to operate an early childhood education and care service in Australia. The eligibility criteria to become an approved provider of ECEC are necessarily rigorous to ensure the integrity of the ECEC system. That's why those same requirements are also being applied to grants made under the wage justice bill. There are many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations that are approved providers of early childhood education and care, and, of course, the Albanese government is investing $3.6 billion in funding a 15 per cent wage increase for ECEC workers. Limiting grant eligibility to approved providers ensures the integrity of the program.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>Minister, I'm just seeking some clarification in relation to this bill. What is the exact funding formula the government will be using to calculate how much each service will receive, and will you be providing that to the services?</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>The government, as you're aware, has committed to funding a wage increase of 10 per cent in the first year and an additional five per cent in the second year. The government will also make a 20 per cent contribution to eligible on-costs, and, in our view, this gives providers the certainty they need to apply the wage increase.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>Thank you, Minister. Yes, I'm aware of those percentages. I was seeking the exact funding formula the government will be using to calculate how much services will receive, if you could provide that information please.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>Thanks, Senator Henderson. I suspect the reason you might be asking the question is that the government at this point in time is not releasing that formula. We are, however, investing around $3.6 billion to support the 15 per cent wage increase for ECEC workers over two years. We did hear the sector's call for more information about the wage funding, and in response we've announced that the fee constraint in the second year will be 4.2 per cent, which is based on the ABS's new childcare services cost index. As soon as we're in a position to provide more details of the funding formula, we will, obviously, do that by communicating with providers.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>Minister, it is concerning that this information is not being made public. Can you please explain why this is being hidden, and, if you are going to be providing that information to service providers, when will it be provided? It is deeply concerning. This scheme is just weeks away from starting. You've obviously determined as a government the payment methodology—how the funding will be determined. Childcare centres need to know now. They need to know what is coming in the door. So I would ask you, Minister, to disclose this funding methodology now. This is what every childcare service provider deserves, and no less. And, if you're going to be conveying further information to childcare providers, could you please indicate the date by which that information will be provided?</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>As I said earlier, Senator Henderson, the government has already made a public commitment to fund the wage rises plus the 20 per cent contribution to eligible on-costs. We will be updating providers as soon as possible with more details around the formulas. What I can say, and we've said this previously, is that it will be taking into account things like the cost of labour and CCS hours at a particular service. I met as recently as this afternoon with representatives of the sector, who didn't raise concerns about this with me, so you're obviously hearing from different providers about this. But, as soon as we're in a position to provide more information, we will do so.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>Minister, there are thousands of providers around the country. I don't know how many of those providers you met with today. But this is a deep concern because, at the end of the day, these mainly small and medium businesses, and some large businesses, need to know what's coming in the door and need to know how that funding will be assessed, using the government's formula. It's clear you know what the formula is. What have you got to hide, Minister? If you are going to be providing it shortly, given the scheme is just about to start could you please provide a date by which this information will be provided?</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>I can't really add to my previous answer.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 3147, amendment (1) on sheet 3112 and amendment (1) on sheet 3100 that have been moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; those against, say no. The noes have it?</p> <p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>by leave—In the interests of time, I'm happy to say that I support this. If anybody else wants to support it, they can say that and then we don't have to divide.</p> <p class="speaker">Steph Hodgins-May</p><p>by leave—I record the Greens' support.</p> <p class="speaker">Tammy Tyrrell</p><p>by leave—I record my support.</p> <p class="speaker">Fatima Payman</p><p>by leave—I record my support.</p> <p class="speaker">Steph Hodgins-May</p><p>I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3002:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 11, page 6 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(a) include provisions to permit amounts paid to the recipient under the grant to be used in relation to the remuneration of workers, who are within a class specified in the agreement for this purpose, that is at least 25% above the worker's current remuneration; and</p><p>With this bill, the government has the opportunity to give long overdue recognition to underpaid, overworked early childhood educators. Instead of delivering the 25 per cent pay increase the sector and unions called for—and which, let's be clear, this workforce deserves—this bill offers them 10 per cent less. Ninety-seven per cent of the early childhood education workforce are women who have fought long and hard for a well-deserved pay rise. For these workers, pay parity is critical to addressing the gender pay gap. Teachers are teachers no matter where they work, and they should not be paid differently. I urge the government to amend the wage increase to 25 per cent so that we can deliver genuine wage justice for our early childhood educators in this country.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>The government will not be agreeing to this amendment. Unlike the Greens party, it is a Labor government that is delivering the pay rise that early childhood educators and carers so very much deserve. This is something that many on the Labor side of the chamber, including Senator Walsh, have campaigned for for many years in collaboration with early childhood educators and carers. I've got multiple quotes I could read out from those workers talking about the difference that this pay rise, being delivered by a Labor government, will make to their lives.</p><p>Early educators undoubtedly do one of the most important jobs in our community, and this Labor government is making sure they are fairly paid for the work that they do. We'll be investing around $3.6 billion to support a 15 per cent wage increase for these workers over two years. It's a responsible wage increase deliberately designed in a responsible way to take pressure off childcare fees. Unlike some members of the Greens party, Labor senators spend time in early childhood education and care services working and talking with those workers and campaigning alongside them, and that is what has resulted in this very-well-deserved pay rise.</p> <p class="speaker">Steph Hodgins-May</p><p>I didn't come here to engage in petty political attacks; I came here to represent the stakeholders in this sector that I have been engaging with throughout the course of this discussion and debate. They respectfully have continued to say that 25 per cent is what it will take to get pay parity with primary and secondary school educators. They continue to say that 25 per cent is what it will take to value the incredibly important work they do educating our kids. You can keep your political attacks to yourself and consider the 25 per cent increase they're demanding.</p> <p class="speaker">Matt O'Sullivan</p><p>The question is that the Greens amendment on sheet 3002 be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|