Page 4839 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
development outcomes for children in care, which will far outweigh the increased cost. Nevertheless, it is an issue that we should be aware of and we should not be pursuing initiatives that needlessly place additional costs on parents.
In this case there is a need, and the better quality education outcomes, I believe, will balance or compensate for that cost. The simple fact is that childcare has always been a significant part of a family’s budget. Over the years my children have been in long day childcare. They have been in after school programs. But with having children in long day care at a centre, it is a significant part of your weekly budget and has been for some decades now.
As for national consistency, there is some merit in having many things being nationally consistent. We are very pleased that we will be part of this consistent scheme, and it should make things easier for centre operators as well as parents. It does, of course, mean a compromise on some things and everything may not be always exactly as we would like. However, ultimately, there are more benefits in cost, and it is in our best interests to adopt the scheme.
That said, I have an amendment that addresses the concern that a bit too much is being conceded. It is important that we clearly maintain this parliament’s role in making the laws that govern the territory. I will return to this issue when I move an amendment in the detail stage, but it is important at this stage to be aware of what weight we are according national consistency, the cost that it comes at, what benefits it brings and what this parliament will and will not agree to so that the executive clearly understands during the negotiation process exactly what framework we should be pushing to set up these schemes.
In relation to other territory acts, it raised concerns for me when I saw the list of acts that would not apply to this act. However, I am satisfied that, on balance, there are mechanisms to replace these and that it is okay to support the exclusion.
In relation to the ousting of the Criminal Code, I have some particular concerns that we have moved to lowest common denominator in some ways. The Criminal Code has a range of advantages that are of particular benefit, particularly the criteria for strict liability offences and our practice of clearly articulating strict liability offences rather than relying on judicial interpretation under the common law. Parliament should expressly articulate the nature of the offences it wishes to prescribe.
In relation to the Legislation Act, there are a number of interpretive provisions in the national law, and I understand the argument that this is needed for consistency to ensure that the provisions are interpreted across jurisdictions in the same manner.
Section 13—that is, matters to be taken into account in assessing whether someone is a fit and proper person—also raises a concern for me in that it provides for a person’s medical condition to be taken into account when determining if a person is suitable to be a childcare provider. Subsection (2) provides:
Without limiting subsection (1), the Regulatory Authority may have regard to—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video