Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Youth) Share this | Hansard source

The first thing I'd say is that I'm not going to be lectured to by the opposition in relation to childcare fees. When they were in government, childcare fees went up 53 per cent, and in one year alone they went up by 14.5 per cent, so we're not going to be taking lectures in relation to childcare fees from those opposite. The greatest support their current policy will provide is literally to those people who are earning $360,000 or more. It really says something about the modern-day Labor Party when that is their target.

Our policy completely reformed the childcare system three years ago and put in place a system which is based on those who have the most means getting the least amount of assistance and those who have the least means getting the most amount of assistance all the way up to 85 per cent of fees. In some cases, the full fees can be taken care of by the government. What we've done, as part of this package, is put in place an activity test. That was in recognition of the fact that the childcare system, by and large, is there to support parents, particularly women, who want to go back to the workforce, are volunteering their efforts or are seeking a job. If they're doing any one of those activities, they can get support through our childcare system. Furthermore, we introduced a fee cap, which puts downward pressure on those fees. I point out that 87 per cent of childcare fees are still below that fee cap.

Has this worked? Has our record extra funding into child care worked? Absolutely. I'll point out some of the data. We've increased funding by 77 per cent since coming to office. Firstly, 280,000 more families have children in child care than when we came to office. Secondly, we have record workforce participation rates amongst women. Today the figures came out. The female participation rate is 61.7 per cent. That's at record levels, even higher than before the pandemic began. Something is working in terms of our childcare policy.

I point out that the out-of-pocket expenses for our childcare system are still on average a dollar down per hour than what they were only a few years ago, before we introduced our policy. At the end of the day, that's what matters. It's not the fees overall that matter. It is the out-of-pocket expenses which matter—the fees charged by the childcare centre minus the subsidy which the government provides. The out-of-pocket expenses are still down $1, on average, compared to what they were before we introduced our massive reform back in 2018, which completely transformed the childcare system. What does this mean now in terms of what everyday families are paying for child care? I can tell you that the average out-of-pocket expense that parents pay today is $3.93 per hour. I can also inform the House that a quarter of all families are paying less than $2 per hour for their child care. The taxpayer makes up, on average, the other $8 per hour. This makes it affordable for a great many families to participate in child care, should they choose to do so. As I've pointed out, there are actually now 280,000 more families who are taking advantage of this.

What we have acknowledged—and we acknowledged this in the budget this year—is that, even if the fees are relatively low on a per-hour basis, if you have more than one child in child care, those fees can still add up. Consequently, we introduced quite a targeted new measure in this year's budget. That measure was to provide an additional subsidy for families who have a second and third child in the childcare system. It applies to all children who are five years and under, to answer the member for Kingston's previous question. What does this mean for the average family? For families with an income of $110,000, which is the median income for families in the childcare system, they'll be about $120 per week—almost $6,000 per year—better off under our scheme if they have two children in full-time child care. It makes a real difference to those families who have two or more children in child care. That's when the costs add up, when you've got multiple children in the childcare system, even if you are paying just $2 per hour.

I want to draw a contrast here between what our policy is and what Labor's policy is. Our policy has been deliberately designed, in its overall structure, to be targeted at those who need it most. For those who are of very significant means, earning $360,000 or more per year, they don't get a cent of childcare subsidies, because we believe that a family earning $360,000 or more should be able to pay for their own child care.

Now, the contrast is stark here because the Labor Party policy, incredibly, is to provide childcare subsidies of 90 per cent to every single family across Australia. This means that the greatest beneficiaries of their childcare policy are those families earning $360,000 or more. What does this mean? A family could be on $500,000 a year and, if they have two children in child care, under our policy they don't get a cent of subsidy. Under the Labor Party policy they will be getting $50,000 worth of taxpayer funded child care if they have two children in full-time care. This is the modern Labor Party, where the greatest beneficiaries of their childcare policy are those people earning $500,000, $1 million or more.

What's more, that family earning $500,000 who's got a couple of kids in full-time care and is now getting $50,000 in free child care under the Labor Party won't even have an activity test. They don't even have to be working. They could be doing whatever they like during the day but just decide they want to have their children in child care during the week, and it is no problem. Under the Labor Party, the taxpayer will subsidise them for that. We find that astounding, but it actually goes to the very heart of why the Labor Party is in such disarray at the moment—

Ms Rishworth interjecting —

See this speech in context