Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (12:51): I rise today to make some remarks about the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Financial Viability) Bill 2011. That bill amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, or the family assistance administration act, to provide for the assessment and monitoring of the financial viability of large long-day-care centre operators of approved childcare services in the context of the approval and continued approval of such services for the purposes of the family assistance law and to authorise the secretary to engage an expert to carry out an independent audit of such an operator where there are concerns about its ongoing financial viability. That is obviously the very technical outline of the bill. As many people would remember, the collapse of ABC Learning created a certain angst and concern out there in the community, and the government has responded by introducing this piece of legislation. The coalition certainly has no issue at all with sensible regulations, but there are a couple of issues regarding this legislation that need some remarks. Firstly, I go to the issue of red tape. One of the things about this legislation that will create a real difficulty for many of the childcare centres is the red tape that will be imposed. A lot of the discussions I have with childcare centres is often around the onerous burden of red tape and the regulations that those childcare centres have to deal with. I note that the member for Farrer said recently that she had heard from one childcare centre that did not provide care for newborn to two-year-olds but was still required to have cot death information within its sleeping policy. We need to take some note of that type of red tape and burdensome work that falls on these childcare centres. That is one of the concerns with this bill that is before us today. According to the explanatory memorandum, this bill will affect about six operators across the country. According to the explanatory memorandum, 25 sites across Australia are needed in order to come under the ambit of the bill and there are six large providers who would do so. It is worthwhile noting as well that the regulation impact statement, according again to the EM: … provides an assessment and information from the consultation process conducted with the childcare sector on the two regulatory measures below: - Developing enhanced measures that required large child care providers to provide financial information in order to assess and monitor their financial viability on an ongoing basis; and - Creating a new legislative power to enable an independent audit (audit power) of a child care provider to be commissioned where there are concerns about its financial viability and the failure of the provider could have a material impact on the market or a section of the market. Certainly, we need to make sure that parents and families in the community are reassured that their childcare centres are operating appropriately and that there is certainty about the operation of that childcare centre. It is interesting to note, though, that in particular all the larger operators currently have their own measures in place to ensure that financial viability. So, in some ways, we could see this legislation to be a bit of a kneejerk reaction by the government to the collapse of ABC Learning. My understanding is that those larger centres do have those appropriate measures in place already. You would assume that under the Corporations Act the requirement for those centres to operate appropriately would also be there. I have mentioned the regulatory burden that is going to fall on childcare centres as a result of this legislation. One of the other issues that is of particular concern to us is the provision in the bill that any other information required by the secretary can be sought. That raises some questions about the type of information that will be required by the secretary. It could mean a multitude of things; it is not particularly clear in the legislation. There is certainly some concern from our side of the chamber about what that 'other information' is. What are those multitude of things that that could perhaps relate to? Perhaps the minister might be able to inform the chamber during the course of this debate how we can get a clearer picture of exactly what 'any other information required' relates to. Also, one of the concerns about that other information required—even having received a clarification—is the potential for childcare centres to need to seek outside assistance, whether it is outside consultants or financial analysts that may be necessary to assist those childcare centres with the information needed and sought by the secretary. So there are a number of things about the nature of this bill that really concern us. It seems that the government's rationale for this legislation following the ABC Learning collapse is that large childcare providers might go 'belly up' and we need to know about it in advance. In some ways that reflects some of the concerns out there in the community. But, interestingly, the focus is only on those larger six operators. Coming from a regional town and travelling through regional communities, particularly small communities, I would say that there would be just as much impact from a small centre going 'belly up' as a larger regional centre because often in our regional communities there is only one small centre. There is not that luxury of choice of providers that we see in the city. It is interesting to see the nature of this legislation being skewed towards those larger providers. The department, and I am sure the government, as indeed the coalition, are quite satisfied that measures are in place at the moment for those smaller centres with regard to their financial viability. It would stand to reason then, given that there is that acceptance and satisfaction of those smaller centres, that there is not the same level of satisfaction when it comes to the larger centres. As I mentioned before, the largest centres already have their internal measures in place when it comes to ensuring their financial viability and they are subject to the Corporations Act. It would seem a little unusual, taking those things into account, that the government is not assured that the largest centres will also be able to ensure their financial viability, as it is satisfied with the smaller centres. We know that this is going to cost around $1.9 million to administer. Compared to some other figures we discuss in this place, as I am sure the parliamentary secretary would know very well, this does not seem a particularly onerous amount. But what we need to look at is the fact that that $1.9 million is going to employ more bureaucrats in the department to administer this program, which we on this side of the chamber by and large believe is superfluous to needs. We really believe that those measures are already in place to ensure financial viability. The issue of the regulatory burden, though, is foremost for us on this side of the chamber. What we need to be doing is ensuring that childcare centres can most appropriately go about their business in the most seamless and practical way that they can. We need to look at this piece of legislation and ask: is it going to achieve something that is not currently in place? From this side of the chamber, we would say probably not. We believe measures are in place currently to deliver the financial assurance that we are looking for, so probably not. Is it going to place a greater burden on childcare centres when it comes to their operations? Yes, it is. I make particular reference to the provision that 'any other information required by the secretary can be sought', because there simply does not seem to be clarity— Senator Jacinta Collins: It doesn't say that. Senator NASH: I will take that interjection from the parliamentary secretary. If it does not say that then I am sure she will correct me. I will stand corrected if I do not have the wording entirely right, but I understand that the secretary will have the ability to ask for further information. We need some clarity around that. I think childcare centres would like to be assured of the type of information that would be sought in any particular instance, if there are going to be any further regulatory burdens relating to that and, in particular, if there are going to be any further costs associated with acquiring the information that might be needed by the secretary. With that, we on this side of the chamber support sensible regulations. There are a number of issues that we have raised with regard to this bill and we certainly want to make sure that, going into the future, childcare centres can operate as efficiently and effectively as they possibly can, without any added burden through any legislation that may or may not have the desired effect. We suspect it will not. We think it is quite likely that the measures are in place to ensure financial viability and it is appropriate to place those concerns on the record.