David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is very pleasing to see that we have an outbreak of cooperation here this afternoon, both in sentiment and in substance. There appears to be furious agreement that child care is a worthy social phenomenon. It is self evident. Child care is so important, because children themselves are important. They are our greatest asset, whether as a parent or collectively as a nation. So we do look after them. Good parents do so instinctively.

The other issue that is important for the nation is female workforce participation, because we are an ageing population and we need more people in the workforce if our economy is to grow, and there are vast skills in the female workforce. It is also important for families, because it is not a question of whether it is good for the economy of the nation; it is vital and important for a family that they have a second income just to cope with mortgages, which in the capital cities and metro areas are enormously expensive. Even in the regions, mortgages are expensive. So parents have no choice; they need to work. It is also important for the health and wellbeing of mothers to use the skills that they have learnt in years of training, in either vocational training or higher ed.

Child care itself is vitally important for the child, because, as previous speakers have outlined, there are much better outcomes for the child if they have been exposed to early learning in the year before they go to school. I do not think there is any argument from this side about the benefits of that: they are learning social skills and preparing themselves for the socialisation that needs to be in place for a child to learn effectively. Some children have no siblings at home. We have smaller families now. In generations past, you got looked after by your older brothers and sisters; you mixed with your older brothers and sisters. But, with one or two children in a family, children of many single-child families need to go to day care, family day care or long day care—whatever the situation—to get those social skills. It can also be good for the family itself, because going to day care in any shape or form is an oasis of calm, logic and reason for some families who are challenged with a pretty chaotic situation at home.

But the reality of economics jumps in everywhere in life, particularly when we have massive deficits and debts to cope with. If we were a company, they would call us trading whilst insolvent. So we have to do things as best we can with that valuable $7 billion and a bit more. We need to countenance all sorts of ways to get those children into the early learning space and to get women back into the workforce.

It is ironic that we put a financial limit on childcare benefits and rebates for those that are working, because they are the people that we really need to get in there. You can claim your car as a cost of your employment if you are a small business man, or all your tools, computers or office costs, because if you do not have those costs your business cannot work. If you are a small business woman, you cannot work if you have childcare responsibilities. So why isn't child care up to a certain limit, when a woman is working, counted as a tax deduction or a cost of doing business? We need to consider those things. If someone is working at home so that the other person can go out to work, why isn't income splitting allowed if it means you are not drawing on the Commonwealth purse to subsidise child care.

We need to consider these things when we have limited fiscal ability to get children into care. What is better than day care is their own mum, but a lot of these mothers need to work, because life is really expensive. The cost of living is expensive. We thoroughly look forward to getting a good resolution to this important issue. (Time expired)

See this speech in context