Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I could not disagree more with the previous speaker about the value of this report. It contains a heap of invaluable information. Evidence and submissions have been gathered Australia-wide and they say a range of things that are a rich resource for anybody interested in developing the policies relating to families, particularly the relationship between families and the workplace. So I am delighted to speak to this report.

Of course there were varying opinions about what would be the best results for families with children—particularly children under the age of five, because it emerged that generally around Australia, where children are of school age, the parents can make easier decisions. It is the under-five-year-olds who need the attention of policy makers and for us to provide the easiest opportunity for families with children. In particular, I guess most families look at the option for the female partner to participate in the workplace. From all the research that we saw during the inquiry, this is the point of greatest stress within families: just balancing that relationship—usually with the mother—between the needs of the children and the need to work.

I do not think we really investigated why mothers work. There are a range of reasons and they are obvious. Fulfilment and personal development are important. Providing additional finance into the family is significant. There are a whole range of reasons that vary from family to family. So to try to prejudge what is best in each individual situation from a policy making point of view is something that is likely to lead to a judgemental approach or a rigid approach that restricts the choice generally available to mothers. But the situation is no different where the father is the one who is the caregiver for young children. The evidence indicates that both of them experience the same sorts of problems in managing the needs of young children, the needs of the family and their own personal aspirations or personal fulfilment.

So the conclusion that I reached very early in the inquiry was that to give maximum choice in each individual situation was the most desirable policy outcome that we could achieve. And, in part, the committee achieved that. There are a lot of ideas about how this can be done. Unfortunately, the member for Fowler seems to have taken—as she does with a number of reports—objection to some of the presentation of the report. She usually does that at the last minute, and that is a great shame because she made a valuable contribution during the discussion and formulation of the report and its recommendations. But in this instance it was obvious that to give mothers in particular absolute maximum choice and flexibility in the decision between working and being at home with young children was the key both to happy families and to the maximum productivity in the workplace.

In those countries internationally where that flexibility is available, the workforce numbers of women have increased rapidly. Their involvement in the workforce is at a maximum and yet their care of children is also at a peak. So we have the desirable combination of these two things, where women have maximum participation in the workforce and maximum care of their children at home. Those figures internationally are irrefutable.

So this committee set out to put forward a number of proposals for government consideration. Non-formal care figured, in-home figured, formal care was considered, the normal preschool care was considered. All the prospects and ranges of family day care, long day care, short day care, were all canvassed by the committee and evidence taken. The result of that evidence is set out in the report in the recommendations also. The concept of tax deductibility is canvassed and presented. The concept of in-home care is canvassed and presented.

I came to a conclusion, a little differently to most committee members—and my views are expressed in part of the report—that it would be best indeed if we were to provide for families the capacity, where the children are under the age of five, to be able to increase the family tax rebate part A. By that we apply a means test to the process and we allow maximum benefit to those families choosing to use non-formal care. The government’s programs at the moment restrict benefits basically to formal care of children. No doubt the educators in our midst would say that that is the best—kids under the age of five need to be educated. I do not believe that that is necessarily the wish of all parents, because many of them prefer children to have a delightful infancy where there is not too much formal structure but a socialising program within their lives whereby through experience they gain knowledge and exposure to others.

So, in my view, the most desirable approach with young children is where they have a loving and caring home life wherever possible and the maximum experience in socialising and in a range of environments. So the choice for parents as to the most desirable form of child care is something that should be left to the parents. We are in a somewhat prescriptive environment at the moment where government says that formal child care is the one that we will support. Probably to gain maximum result and choice, it was better to broaden that.

I consider that where there are young children in the home, if you look at the statistics and the tax, the giving and taking of various benefits—childcare rebates, childcare allowances, the impact of part A and part B of the family tax rebate—and all of the comings and goings and input of those various concessions from government, it works differently for different family compositions and income. So it is my view that, instead of trying to prescribe what should be done, we should make the choice factors important.

What has happened is that for mothers working more than about 15 hours per week, the loss of benefits almost equals their income provided it is a modest income. High fliers—barristers and people like that—can survive. They can pay the high family care rates. But for the average family, a family that could be called, say, the policeman and the hairdresser, the cost of child care can be quite expensive. What people do—and I have spoken to many—is use relatives for part care: they may use formal care for part of their needs and long day care or some other form. Some of these forms of child care are not supported by government policies, and this report raises the need for government to broaden the recognition of child care such as in-home care, family care where there is a registration process so that, in fact, a reasonable and appropriate form of child care can be selected by parents.

To do that, some additional resources are necessary for the family. In weighing up whether it should be tax cuts or tax deductions for child care or whether it should be some other form, it comes down to the fact that it is far better to leave the choice to parents and to change the family tax benefit part A to allow families with children under the age of five to have a family tax rebate of approximately $4,700. That will give about $50 per week per family to be able to select the sort of child care that they want. What will that buy? That will buy the opportunity for mum to get some additional funding to look after the children or for the family long day care centre to be used. It will give maximum choice. This is an invaluable report. It provides lots of information and, unlike the member for Fowler, I welcome its tabling. I thank the chair for her contribution and the members of staff of the committee for their involvement as well.

See this speech in context