Child Care and Another Act Amendment Bill
Friday, 26 February 2010 11:17
CHILD CARE AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Resumed from 9 February (see p. 53), on motion of Mr Wilson—
That the bill be now read a second time.
Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (12.08 pm): I am pleased to make a contribution to the Child Care andAnother Act Amendment Bill 2010. There are three main areas covered under this bill. I will address these three areas in order. The first area of this bill is that, following on from early legislation that published certain notices that were issued to child-care operators on a website, we are now in this bill requiring child-care operators to keep a logbook available to parents and prospective parents that details any notices, variations to their licence, suspensions et cetera.
The main difference that this bill has to the existing arrangements is that minor notices or notices pertaining to minor breaches will also be included in the logbook. The LNP and I, as shadow minister,have consistently supported parents’ right to information. Even where this has been a difficult issue,such as the My School website, we have taken the attitude that the overriding right of parents to have access to information about where their children are cared for or where they are educated should be the guiding principle.
In the case of the My School website, that was a difficult decision for us because that information is prone to misuse. We see with the creation of league tables that conclusions are erroneously drawn that because a school’s overall performance on a league table exceeds another school’s then the school higher in the league table is providing a better outcome for individual students. That is a false conclusion that cannot be drawn. The LNP has had that concern about league tables, but we hav esupported the publication of this data on the basis that the overriding consideration that the LNP wishes to support is that parents have a right to this information. For the same reason, we will not be opposing the provision in this bill relating to logbooks being maintained in the child-care sector. I do wish to express some concerns and make some points that the minister and the department may wish to take on board.
I put the bill that the minister introduced in the last sitting week out to consultation among industry stakeholders and operators in the industry. I think it is very instructive to look at some of the feedback I received. It would be in the best interests all round if the government took on board some of the feedback that we have been getting for a while. I certainly will not name the industry participants who have made these comments, but it is pretty important to record their comments in relation to this bill. In relation to the keeping of logbooks, one respondent says—
Every time we have an inspection the inspectors feel obliged to give a notice to justify their existence—not saying that these visits should not happen but that the consistency and veracity of what they do leaves a lot to be desired. For example, we could get a notice because the text on a staff member’s photograph was 16 point and not 18 point in size. We have had this happen at our centre, and many other centres report similar things. Now, if this gets published it is rubbish.
The same respondent further states—
I don’t know if the legislators know this, but a disproportionate amount of our teachers’ time is keeping logs. For example, in thelast accreditation rounds we had to introduce a log where each teacher documented all the interventions given to each child that day so that when the parents arrived to pick up their children they could read what had happened. A great idea, but it is a trade-off against actual care. This logbook is of the same kind.
He then goes on to perhaps suggest a bit of annoyance in the industry by saying, ‘If thegovernment wants this, then they should publish their own documents.’ Another respondent says inrelation to the logbooks—
Child-Care logbook—more paper for nothing much. This is a factor for centres to share when nobody in their right mind is going to show a parent a logbook that is negative.
From the opposition’s point of view, we do not think that justifies not having the information available, of course. The respondent continues—
458 Child Care and Another Act Amendment Bill 24 Feb 2010Government knows that closing a seriously non-complaint centre will lose them votes so instead of getting tough they are loading us, the operators, up with more useless paperwork.
There is a theme of concern there that we are not adequately differentiating between the seriousbreaches—the things that may endanger a child—and things that might be considered administrativebreaches or minor breaches.
Another very senior industry participant was concerned that this sort of focus, particularly when itis on minor issues such as the point size of the writing on a staff member’s photograph, may lead to us becoming so totally risk averse that we affect normal childhood experiences. This is a theme that I have had repeated to me by a number of industry participants. This major stakeholder in the industry, whom I will not name because I have not sought their permission to use their name, said—
Even though I am sure some services will continue to receive non-compliance notices, I am more concerned with what mayconstitute noncompliance, particularly in outdoor environments, as history tells us there are quite varying degrees as to what isappropriate, safe or challenging in the outdoors. I would hate to see the trend to sanitise early childhood advanced any morethrough an overzealous compliance regime.
Those saying this are all major industry participants in child-care and kindergarten services. They are certainly well known to the opposition and reputable operators. Those concerns about red tape and about getting the balance right between protecting children, a parent’s right to know and tying up a lot of time for incredibly minor things that will lead to industry simply becoming very risk averse and very focused on pretty trivial things may have some counterproductive effects.
The opposition will be applying its overriding belief that parents have a right to this information.We will not be opposing the provision to maintain logbooks in child-care centres, but we do want thegovernment to understand the concern that is out there in the industry and the fact that sometimes there is a difference between what we enact here in legislation and how it is applied—that is, whether it is appropriate and whether common sense is used. I appreciate the minister’s nod on that.
The second of the three areas that this bill applies to is the Masters report recommendation that teachers graduating from university and seeking registration as a teacher should sit a test of their proficiency in literacy, numeracy and science—the ‘test the teacher’ provision. The opposition has given the government bipartisan support on this issue, as we will continue to do by supporting the measure in the bill today. It is a difficult issue to discuss in some contexts. There has been concern expressed, including within the teaching profession, within universities and within other forums, that the standard of teachers coming out of our universities may not, in some instances, be good enough. I hope that is taken in context. That concern is there. Masters identified and expressed that concern. He recommended that this measure go forward. We will be supporting the government in doing so.
There are a couple of things that the minister may care to clarify for us. The explanatory notes tothis bill indicate quite clearly that there will be no cost to government as a result of the measures in this bill. That leads me to conclude that the Queensland College of Teachers, which will be required to purchase these tests or write them themselves and presumably apply them, mark them and collateresults, will not receive additional government funding to do this.
The Queensland College of Teachers is largely funded by the fees that teachers pay. Teachers might feel particularly aggrieved that existing teacher registration fees have to fund this test. The only other way I can see this being funded—and the minister, I trust, will clarify this for me in his summing up—is through some sort of user-pays system. That is, those sitting the test through the Queensland College of Teachers will be required to pay the cost of sitting the test. I think that is potentially a very harsh outcome, but at the end of the day someone is going to have to pay the costs for these tests and this bill indicates that the government is not going to be that somebody.
We have seen recently that an overwhelming majority of teacher graduates in Queensland have been unable to obtain a full-time teaching job—the overwhelming majority. Many of these kids graduating from university—many of them will be very good teachers given the opportunity—have aright to ask some questions about what has gone on in relation to planning in that we are producing teachers, we appear to desperately need teachers but when they graduate there is in fact no job for them. I fear that some of these graduates will become very disenchanted and feel that they are notwanted. I certainly would not like to see the Queensland College of Teachers, because it receives nogovernment funding, then pass another major obstacle on to new graduates in making them pay thecost of these tests. It would be particularly galling if they have to pay the cost of the test in order to be registered but when they get registered there is no job for them anyway.
The third part of the bill relates to workers in non-school areas. Some of these changes in myview are necessary changes. There are probably three areas where we are making changes in this bill.One issue revolves around the requirement of teachers to re-register every five years and in order tokeep their recency of practice they must have worked the equivalent of one year in five; otherwise theyneed to go through a process to re-establish their recency which can be in service but requires them to upgrade their knowledge of the syllabus and so forth.
Under the existing act, to be considered to be working as a teacher one needs to be working in aschool. But, as we know, teachers do sometimes work in places that are not technically considered to be a school. The obvious one that is going to grow greatly in importance is in the area of early childhood where we will have four-year trained university teachers working in child-care centres, which are now moving to deliver the kindergarten programs, or in the government’s new C&K operated centres. These teachers would not at the moment be technically considered to be working in a school. Therefore, that teaching work would not qualify them for recency of teaching work when they come to re-register. The opposition would certainly support the measures in this bill that would allow those teachers to have that work recognised as teaching for recency purposes.
Another example is the TAFE senior colleges. Provided the teacher is delivering a Queenslandcurriculum for schools as part of that TAFE senior college, that will also be recognised as teachingexperience. There are a number of TAFE senior colleges around the state, notably in the electorate ofmy colleague the member for Hervey Bay and also in Alexandra Hills. Again, provided those teachersare delivering an approved school curriculum, I do not think anyone would have any desire to disputethe fact that they are currently teaching.
It becomes a little bit greyer when we move into the area of education advisers or what is referredto in the explanatory notes as people who are on leadership duties, and I think it is quite a bit greyer. Iunderstand that there are something like 20 education advisers per education district, so we arepossibly looking at around 200 people. It also applies of course to literacy and numeracy coaches. Itwould be fair to say that the opposition would prefer that people in these educational advice roles were in fact still meeting the requirement for recency—that is, that they did the equivalent of one year in five in the classroom. In any sort of profession, particularly a rapidly moving profession like teaching, there is not really a substitute for spending at least some time—perhaps only the equivalent of one day a week—in the classroom at the coalface. That would certainly be our preference.
I do hope that the minister might give some more detail in relation to this matter. I do note thatthere is an assurance in the explanatory notes—and a very important assurance as far as the opposition is concerned—that this measure will not extend to bureaucrats or white-collar workers within the department whose role is not directly related to activity in the classroom. I would rely on that assurance, but we would like some more detail. The opposition would not wish to penalise any particular group that is genuinely working in teaching related activities or classroom related activities and we would not want to necessarily single out a group to oppose the fact that their work should be treated as currency. It is not our intention to oppose any of these provisions that I have just discussed, but more information will go some way to assuaging some concerns.
I would also ask the minister in his summing-up to give us more information as to how many extrateacher registrations his department considers will result from the extension of the currencyarrangements in this bill. The three areas that I have spoken about today are the key areas of the bill, so I do not intend to go on any longer in relation to it. I look forward to the minister making some additional comments and I will ensure that I have a few questions for him during consideration in detail of the bill.