Nationals go feral and a disgruntled Opposition and media

After hearing nothing from the National Party during the election, we have been treated to the unedifying spectacle of Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss launching strident and savage attacks against the two independent MPs who decided to support Labor in a minority government.  This behaviour is quite inappropriate and demonstrates the worst of "politics as usual" by MPs who should know better.

Tony Abbott, to his credit, has attempted to reign them in but has not been able to do so.  So much for a "stable opposition".  We have also seen attacks on the minority government by Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne, who labelled it as "illegitimate".   This was also inappropriate and was just more attack-dog style politics.

We also see the Coalition (all 74 of them) now committed to more whining and carping and incessant criticism of the minority government.  Imagine trying to run a company where 49% of the workers were sitting back and doing nothing other than finding fault, often for no good reason, with the other 51% working for the good of the company!   There is certainly no new paradigm being displayed here.

The response from large sections of the media is also curious.  Some seem outraged by the lack of a "winner takes all" result and subsequent autocratic behaviour of a particular political party.

As many observers have noted, minority government and power sharing arrangements are the norm in most modern democracies.  There is nothing wrong with this, and there are several advantages as we have already seen - such as better decision making, getting a wider range of issues considered by government and parliamentary reform to improve its function to name a few.

I was impressed by Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's short speeches when they announced their decision.  They made several excellent points and also provided a clear and considered basis for their decision to support a minority government with Labor, the Greens Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie.

Bob Katter had his moment in the sun and predictably swayed in the conservative direction of his constituents in Far North Queensland to support Tony Abbott and the Coalition.   Even though he displayes a visceral hate for a couple of the current national party members.  But then he knew they were not going to form government.

Some other points of interest are:

• Penny Wong may be replaced as the minister responsible for climate change by Greg Combet.  Wong has been a dismal failure in the role, but Combet has previously launched intemperate attacks on the Greens. 
• Peter Garrett is missing in action.  Off to the back bench I think, never to be seen again.
• Rudd looks like he will be the next foreign minister - he would be the best for this role and Stephen Smith has graciously stepped down to vacate it
• Wilson Tuckey has lost his seat to an "independent National".  Bye bye Wilson.
• Stephen Conroy seems to still be pursuing his ill-considered "clean feed Great Firewall of Australia" despite the fact he won't get support in either house for it.  Drop it Stephen.
• I still think Malcolm Turnbull should be offer the job as Treasurer.  Wayne Swan really doesn't seem to know what he is doing.
• What will be become of Martin Fergusan?  Will he retain his job as Minister for Coal and Oil?  He had a massive swing against him in favour of the Greens Alex Bhathal.
• "Border security" and "the population debate" have both disappeared off the radar, and so they should.  If Labor and the Coalition ramp up this sort of dangerous and errant nonsense in future elections then the Greens will pick up even more votes and more will get elected.   No more dog whistles please.

Hopefully we will see a rejuvenated political system with less gumpf from the mainstream media and opposition, and we will at last see some positive steps to the future, including steps to transition to a clean and safe energy future.

A well hung parliament is healthy for Australia

Negotiations are proceeding to form a stable government in Australia, with neither of the "major" (or "old") parties getting enough seats in the House of Representatives to form government on their own.  The magic number is 76 seats.

Currently the Liberal - National coalition have won 73, which includes a National MP in Western Australia who has not yet fully committed to supporting the Coalition.

Labor have won 72 seats.  The Greens had previously committed to supporting a minority Labor goverment [link], bring Labor's total to 73.

Andrew Wilkie, the indepedent who has just won the seat of Denison in Tasmania, committed to supporting a Labor minority government today [link].  Wilkie's commitment boosts Labor to 74.

There are three remaining independents yet to decide who they will support.

Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott appear to share similar views on matters of policy and the conduct of government.  The recent revelation of serious errors in Coalition budget estimates and promised found by Treasury means they are either incompetent or liars, which does not auger well for a future Abbott government.

Both Windsor and Oakeshott have stated that a price on carbon is needed as one of the measures to tackle climate change [link].  Abbott ruled this out during the election campaign and stated his government would not bring in either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.

For these reasons (and a few more), I think Windsor and Oakeshott will support Labor too, which would give Labor 76 seats.

Bob Katter comes across as a rough diamond passionate about protecting the interests of rural Australia.  There is no doubt that services and economic conditions in much of rural Australia have been neglected by political parties (and governments) intent on winning elections focussed on marginal seats.  Katter was quoted today saying the "Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut are lightweights" along with some mutterings about climate change [link] - which seems to indicate he is the camp of politicians gulled by carbon industry PR.

Katter's background and the views of voters in his electorate would seem to push him towards supporting Abbott, but he may go along with his other two independent colleagues and support Labor too.

We should know by the end of this weekend coming.

The hung parliament has been the best possible result for the election, as our political system was being gamed by the major parties leading to many perverse policies, including unfair treatment of asylum seekers, avoidance of any real action on climate change to name a couple.

The benefits of this hung parliament are already clear.  They include:

• reform of question time in parliament so that it real questions get asked and properly answered (3 independents)
• two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills (Greens)
• an independent speaker in the House (3 independents)
• bans (or limits) on donations to political parties (Greens)
• some tightening of policies relating to poker machines and problem gamblers (Wilkie)
• the scrapping of Labor's ill advised "Citizens Assembly on Climate Change" and establishment of a Climate Change Committee to replace it (Greens)
• a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians (Greens)
• access to Treasury analysis of government and coalition budget estimates and statements (the three independents).
• the formation of a climate change committee
• a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan (Greens)
• legislation on truth in political advertising (Greens)
• the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee (Greens)
• a parliamentary integrity commissioner (Greens)
• improved processes for release of documents in Parliament
• a leaders debates Commission (Greens)
• a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms (Greens)

All these are in the best interests of good governance and the people of Australia.

An opportunity for a new form of government

The 2010 Australian Federal election results are not yet finalised, but it appears that no party has enough seats (76) to form government on its own.  This situation has not occurred in Australia since 1940.

The Greens have won their first ever lower house seat at a general election (Adam Bandt in Melbourne).

The three previous (incumbent) independents have been returned to office.  These are:

• Tony Windsor, New England (rural NSW)
• Bob Katter, Kennedy (rural QLD)
• Rob Oakeshott, Lyne (rural NSW)

In addition, it is quite likely that Andrew Wilkie may win the seat of Denison in Tasmania as an independent.

Negotiations are in progress between the three confirmed independents and both the Labor party and the Coalition as to how a minority government might be formed.

I think this is a good outcome for democracy.  All those elected (all parties and independents) have been selected via the current electoral process by the people of Australia.  It is incumbent on them to form a stable and effective government.

These three confirmed independents have stated that a new form of government will be required to provide the stability required, and that traditional party politics should be shelved to make this happen.  I agree.

If either major party forms government in their own right they tend to run their own agenda along their party line rather than respecting the best interests and wishes of the Australian people.  They are basically accountable to nobody until the next election.

We saw this with the Rudd Labor government ignoring the recommendations of the extensive Garnaut Review of Climate Change and concocting a fatally compromised Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS), that was initially supported by the Coalition opposition, then opposed.  It failed because it was no good.

The Henry Tax Review finished early in 2010 was eventually released by the Rudd Labor government, who then chose to implement only 2 of the 137 recommendations (the mining tax being one of them) in the midst of an election campaign for political reasons.

Rob Oakeshott made the point on the 7:30 Report (special election edition 22/8) that a lot of time, money and effort has gone into these and other similar reports, which could be considered by the next government with more care and attention than the previous one.   In short, the next government should use this type of information to formulate policies for the future covering energy, carbon pollution, taxation and water utilisation and conservation, rather than just playing short term political games about these important issues.

It seems that the old political parties have become part of the problem contributing to lack of action on climate change and inadequate planning and investment in infrastructure for the 21st century.  They are stuck in old paradigms of winning, losing, being "in government" or "in opposition".

Why should 51% of our elected representatives be given the right to "govern" in an autocratic manner with the other 49% consigned to "opposition" where they spend most of their efforts whining, criticising, attacking and just opposing for the sake of it?

If Malcolm Turnbull would be a better treasurer than Wayne Swan, why shouldn't he get the job?   Our current political system totally precludes this (for this example with a Labor Government in office).

The Labor, Liberal and National parties are out of touch and out of date.  The Greens need to be very careful they don't end up in the same state.

Tony Abbott seems to think he has won the election and Labor has lost, apparently oblivious to the reality that the Australian people have given him no mandate to govern.

Julia Gillard seems to be adopting a better negotiation approach to possibly forming a minority government with the support of the independents and the single Greens lower house member.

I think we need a form of government where all 150 lower house MPs are accountable for delivering stability, innovation, good management of the executive arm of government and planning for a prosperous and sustainable future.  Bring it on please.

External links

• Parties tussle to form government, The Age
• Greens hedge their bets, The Age
• Labor leads race for minority government, The Age
• Hung parliament looms, as voters punish Gillard, The Age
• We deserve to lead, says Abbott, Heraldsun
• Politics abhors a vacuum, ABC

11th hour hatchet job on the Greens on Lateline

The Leigh Sales interview with Michael Kroger and Paul Howes on 20/8/2010 lacked balance in one very serious aspect.  

We heard the Labor point of view (Howes) and the Coalition's (Kroger), but both of them attacked the Greens about them potentially holding the balance of power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We did not get to hear the Greens point of view on this.  Such unbalanced coverage is likely to impact the Greens vote  during this election, particularly among those voters who have not yet made up their mind (up to 1 in 10 apparently).

A spokesperson from the Greens should have been represented in this discussion for fairness and balance. This segment was not accurate, impartial or objective in its coverage of the Greens.

I wish to lodge this as a formal complaint.

=============

You can leave your own feedback about this here.

The end game - is a minority government likely?

The election campaign is now at end game.

This election was Labor's to lose rather than Abbott's to win, and it looks like Labor may have just about blown it.  The basic problem with playing politics is that a clear majority of people don't like it.

We haven't seen any leadership on fundamental issues of great concern and importance; such as moving Australia towards a sustainable and vibrant economy for future generations to enjoy.

A summary of the political tactics in play follows:

Labor

• Focus on Abbott and his negatives - viz:
• Attempt to scare people about the prospects of Abbott as Prime Minister.  There is some validity to this as Abbott's belief that climate change somehow isn't happening is real worry (remember the bushfires?) and he has flagged big cuts to education and the public sector.  This is similar to John Howard's "please don't kick me by registering a protest vote" line in 2007.
• Keep blaming the Greens for Penny Wong's failure to get a price on carbon.  They really have to get over this - they did not negotiate with the Greens on either the ETS or an interim carbon tax, their politically strategy to wedge the Liberals backfired when Turnbull was deposed as leader and Abbott took over.  Kevin Rudd then backed down when he should have called a double dissolution history
• Try and shift the focus from Rudd's fall from grace - Labor even had him campaigning in the seat of Melbourne in atttempt to stop Adam Bandt winning it for the Greens.

Liberals

• Keep on hammering Labor about the demise of Kevin Rudd, and attack Julia Gillard as one of the perpetrators of his demise
• Grab the media by any means possible - Abbott's "I am not sleeping until the election" tactic has been quite effective here.  There is lots of media coverage about this, despite the fact that Abbott dashing around in frenzy visiting police stations (law & order) and other random locations is essentially meaningless.
• Attack the credibility of the Labor government across a number or topics - including asylum seekers (even though they share identical policies) , the economy (even though Labor steered Australia through the  GFC), and Julia Gillard's bona fides.

The Greens

• Keep the focus on positive policies - such as tacking climate change, reducing taxes for small business. This is difficult with a huge proportion of media attention focused on who will win out of Tony and Julia and who will from government.
• Convince people that a green vote counts - and try and counter attempts by both major parties to "scare supporters back into the fold".  This is of particular importance to the Greens in the Senate and the seat of Melbourne.
• Present the Greens as a positive influence in the senate if they end up with the balance of power.
• Avoid getting sucked into discussion on preferences.  For the future, I think the Greens should adopt a policy of reforming the voting system to eliminate (or at least reduce the effect of) preference deals.

In summary, for the major parties, the election has devolved to a "he said - she said" and "we are right - you are wrong" game devoid of any real substance.

Interestingly, several newspaper editorials and articles today have made similar points. 

• We deserve much better, Heraldsun editorial
• Australia needs a government with a vision for the future, The Age editorial
• Climate of evasion compounds the challenge, The Age editorial
• Don't squib the chance to have a say, Richard Flannagan, The Age
• Green around the Gillard, The Age

It seems our style of western democracy has spun itself into a silly game where long term planning and strategic outcomes get lost in a babble of inane "campaigning".  A minority government is a likely outcome that I think would be positive.  It is better that some independents and the Greens have a say and role in government rather than sitting as with the "opposition".  

Adversarial systems often don't deliver outcomes; it is time for our parliament to truly represent the people rather than the fairly narrow interests of political parties and career politicians.

As postscript, here is a video I shot yesterday of a discussion between Nicola Roxon, Bob Brown and Joe Hockey with Jon Faine on ABC 774 radio.

PPS: It is also interesting to note how much we have heard about Abbott and Gillard, and how little we have from other such as:

• Barnaby Joyce (where are the Nationals?)
• Almost all Lower House candidates from all parties (except for a few marginal seats)
• Wilson Tuckey (has he been gagged?)
• Penny Wong (following her abject failure on climate change policy)
• Eric Abetz (the shadow minister for logging)
• Mark Arbib (gone to ground apparently)
• Peter Garrett (after several train wrecks as a minister)
• Bronwen Bishop (the silence is deafening).
• Kim Carr (shouldn't he be spruiking the "cash for clunkers" scheme?)
• Martin Ferguson (the minister for coal)

It seems that some effort during the campaign actually might go into keeping some of these people off the airwaves, or maybe the media is just not interested in what they have to say?

Is Julia Gillard doing a Beazley?

So now we have the new Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, launching Labor's election campaign less than a week before the election with hardly a mention of climate change - "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

This election has been largely a content and policy free zone.  It has devolved to a game of cat and mouse between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, both of whom have adopted personas quite different from their own.

Gillards rapier wit and forensic precision so often admired in parliament has been replaced by a bland and carefully measured drone.  She doesn't answer questions and stays on message about "moving forwards".

Abbott's bovver boy combative style has been replaced by a forced joviality and an appearance of calmness and control befitting someone who would be prime minister.

Neither are playing their natural game and it shows.  The winner takes all game they are playing is to form government after the election.  To do this they need to win the votes of a small percentage of swinging votesr  (less than 15%) in a small number of marginal electorates - approximately 20 out of 150.

The entire election has been pitched at winning the votes of this very small proportion (less than 5%) of the Australian population - based on feedback from "focus groups" in these electorates.

Rusted on voters are taken for granted -their votes won't shift.

Voters in non-marginal seats are considered irrelevant as their votes will not determine who will win government.

So what about the issues?

Climate change

• Gillard has committed to a "community consensus of 150 randomly selected people".  There will of course be no consensus if at least one skeptic is included, and there is nothing new that will emerge that the Garnaut Climate Change Report has not covered
• Abbot has committed to NOT introducing any price on carbon pollution if he wins government, and to hand out millions of taxpayers funds as corporate welfare to large polluters to "encourage them to reduce their emissions".  This is ridiculous - the role of government is to legislate, not hand out corporate welfare.
• Gillard scores 1 out of 10, Abbott scores 0.  Neither will commit to the year Australia's emissions should peak then fall.
• Emission reductions 0.

Asylum seekers

• Gilllard has "done a Beazley" and aped Coalition (indeed Howard) policy on offshore processing.  This will disenfranchise a lot of Labor voters and drive them to the Greens.  This could a factor that costs Labor the election.  This is moving to the right and to the bottom, not moving forwards
• Abbott's policy is virtually indistinguishable from Gillard's
• Both are dog whistling on this too - dropping hints about "border security" and "Australia's population growth", both of which are completely irrelevant, but not apparently in the minds of those few voters who matter

National Broadband Network (NBN)

• This is one of the few policy areas where there is a discernible difference.  
• Labor is committing to spending $43b on fibre to 93% of homes offering speeds up to 1gbit per second.  Next generation wireless services to 4 per cent of premises and satellite services to 3 per cent will deliver speeds of 12 megabits per second.
• This has a very high cost and provides bandwidth than many people need.
• Abbott is proposing a confusing mixture of cheaper technologies - but it is quite clear he does not know what he is talking about. He has committed to killing the NBN too.
• I think about $20b should be spent on high speed internet - with the priority shifted to rural and regional Australia that currently has poor and expensive services - and the other $20b allocated to clean energy project to transition us off coal

Health

• Gillard wins on this - GP super clinics are a good idea and some additional funding for mental health have been committed too.
• Abbott will kill the GP super clinics.

The outcome will be interesting.  Labor could well lose the election in the key marginal seats, even though they are likely to have a higher overall vote.

Forests
Forest destruction and land clearing accounts for over 8% of Australia's carbon emissions, yet neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott is proposing to do anything about this.  The solution is quite simple - protect our native forests for their carbon stores, biodiversity and water production.   However, the silence from Tony and Julia on this is deafening.

Indigenous Australians
The racist Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 brought in by John Howard as an election stunt in 2007 is still in place and supported by Labor.  This legislation is racist as they first had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to bring it in.  This suspension is still in force.  Welfare payments are quarantined and indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are treated differently from everybody else.

It was supposed to be an emergency in 2007, yet in 2010 indigenous affairs have not been mentioned during the campaign.  The gap has not been closed, and needs to be.  Indigenous Australians need to empowered to manage their own affairs, and more funding is required for improved health, housing and employment.

Public Transport
No federal funding is routinely allocated to the States for public transport, unlike roads which are funded 50% federally and 50% from the States.

Consequently, public transport infrastructure has lagged behind and crumbled for over 50 years.

During this election campaign, the Gillard goverment has announced funding for two new urban rail lines that both run through marginal electorates.

• Gillard has pledged $742 million for the long-awaited $1.15 billion Redcliffe rail connection, should Labor be re-elected.
• Gillard has promised to build the long-awaited $2.6 billion rail link between Parramatta and Epping.  This rail line runs through the marginal seat of Bennelong.  This is the biggest single funding announcement of Gillard's campaign so far, with $2.1 billion in federal funds towards the project, with the a state government contribution of $520 million.

Gillard have also pledged up to $20 million for a feasibility study into a fast railway linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.  This after they has previously voted down a bill from the Greens for exactly this, prior to the election campaign.

Will we get a minority government?

I think the best outcome would be hung parliament followed by negotiation to form government with independent MPs such a Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, and possible Adam Bandt from the Greens if he wins the seat of Melbourne.

This would curb the excesses of either major party governing in their own right, with the democratic representatives of other electorates frozen out of government and forced into a largley futile opposition" role.

Perhaps it is time for political parties to be banned - as they mostly don't act in the best interests of Australia and they corrupt the basic principle of democracy by putting there "partly line" at a much higher priority than the local MPs representing their own constituents.

This is an interesting "example" of election advertising from the Gruen Nation program that we have not seen during this campaign.  It provides some food for thought.

Why can't Rudd do a carbon tax?

With the Federal election likely to be called this year, probably in August, the Rudd Labor government is now in campaign mode.  Consequently, its policies and focus are directed toward positioning themselves for winning the election and not much else.

The campaign strategy discussions may have unfolded something like this:

What will be our core platform for the election?

• Let's do health, education, economic responsibility and the national broadband network
• We will lob a new health funding model on the States and bully them into submission  so we appear tough and forceful
• We can trade off avoiding the Global Financial Crisis claiming we saved Australia from financial ruin

What will be our main issues to defend for the election?

• We completely flubbed it on climate change when Copenhagen turned to custard, and we had no plan B - so lets keep blaming the Greens for not supporting the industry-friendly CPRS - and the Liberals for sidestepping our skillfully crafted wedge when Turnbull went under and Abbot took over

• We aren't doing too well on environment either, with native forests still being destroyed, the Great Barrier Reef dying, the Orange Bellied Parrot and a few other species rapidly heading towards extinction - so lets get Peter Garrett out there handing out money for a few good causes in the States. 

• The housing insulation scheme killed for people and turned it a fatal farce.  Can't remember why we gave this to the Environment Minister Garrett when he and his department know nothing about building matters or managing large scale projects. So let's take it off him and give him a bit more money to throw around.  And send him to the back bench after the next election.

• Clear the decks.  We have a few backflips to get out of the way.

• Backflip 1  (Kevin Rudd) - the need for urgent action on climate change "the great moral challenge of our time" - the CPRS (emissions trading) now on hold until 2013

• Backflip 2 (Kate Ellis)- ditch the building of 260 new childcare facilities

• Backflip 2 (Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd) - avoid scrutiny of Government advertising by the Auditor General by announcing a $38 million, taxpayer funded political advertising campaign., despite it being “a cancer on our democracy” and a clear commitment from Rudd that this would not happen., 

Then some polls were released indicating that Kevin Rudd had burnt most of his political capital in a very short space of time and his support plummeted, with opposition leader Tony Abbott seemingly now capable of winning the next election.

Let's run a scare campaign on Abbott - like Howard did on L Plates Latham.  Let's even compare Abbott to Latham.  Brief to all ministers - keep saying "Tony Abbott would win an election if one were held tomorrow".

Now we need to get back onto our core platform.  

We have an exposure on the economy - we are now seriously in debt with a large deficit.  Lets cherry pick from the Henry Tax Review something that will help us back on track to a budget surplus.  Let's go with the Resource Super Profits Tax - will lob it out there and have some biffo with the mining companies.  This will give Kevin Rudd another opportunity to demonstrate his strong leadership style, and will offset some of the fallout from gifting $8 billion via the failed CPRS to large corporations making millions out of fossil fuels.

Well, that worked, sort of.  We got the media off climate change and even backflips, but those mining companies sure have gone troppo.  Now a bit of a stoush and ritual combat is turning into another problem for us - no consultation with stakeholders (like health reform), and back benchers in marginal seats with mines getting restless.  Let's hang tough for another couple of weeks then reduce the RSPT rate a bit to shut them up.

*** End of script as at 15 June 2010 ***

This reads a bit like a script from the Hollowmen.  But then truth is stranger than fiction.

Here are a few things that should have happened:

• Negotiate with Greens and two Coalition Senators in the Senate to get a carbon tax in place - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, and the funds can be directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy
• Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others
• Allow tax deductions and/or salary packing for people who cycle to work
• Ditch the $2billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" /geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.
• Commence a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.
• Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (and keep Peter Garrett away from it)
• Protect native forests from logging to keep the carbon they store where it is, secure our water supplies and provide habitat for endangered species.

I am not holding my breath for any of this.  But I am astounded by the failings of our political system and our major party politicians to deliver sensible policies.

They are intent of just playing politics, striving to get into government, then just pfaffing around when they get there.

*** Script update at 15 June 2010 ***

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appeared on the 7:30 Report on Monday night.  He appeared to be in damage control mode forcing some smiles, rapidly blinking and appeared uneasy.  When questioned about the Resource Super Profits Tax, the mining industry campaign against it and the date of the next election he mentioned that the election could be delayed until March/April 2011.  

"Yeah, well we have an election due by whatever it is, March or April next year and we only have three year terms. You've got to use the time effectively. "

So it seems that the nascent election campaign in progress may be drastically rescheduled.  Then again he may go early to avoid Tony Abbott gaining more support.  

I wish he would just bring a carbon tax and get on with it.

External links

• FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Australia
• The end of the world as we know it
• Kevin Rudd to backflip on mining tax rate
• Labor breaks childcare centre promise