Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate my support for this bill but also to share with the House where I hope that we can improve on this area in the future, as well as my ongoing concerns about the looming crisis in early childhood education. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill is a welcome acknowledgement from this government that, for too many Australian families, early childhood education is unaffordable and not financially worthwhile.

This legislation increases the rate of the childcare subsidy from 85 per cent to 90 per cent for those earning less than $80,000 a year. That increased childcare subsidy will decrease by one per cent from 90 per cent for every $5,000 earned over $80,000 a year. The subsidy then cuts out when the family income level hits $530,000. The legislation strengthens protections against fraud. It also introduces discounts for parents who work as early childhood educators. This is perhaps one of the most direct demonstrations of how providing child care for women benefits workforce participation, and its multiplying benefits for our economy. The bill also introduces a base rate of 36 subsidised hours of child care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, regardless of their parents' activity levels. This is a worthwhile reform to the problematic activity test, which I'll speak more about in a moment. Any measure to see more young children attending early childhood education is a good thing. This bill will see more young children being able to attend more hours at child care, accessing valuable developmental benefits to prepare them for primary school and setting them up for a lifetime of better educational, social and employment outcomes.

The evidence is clear about the benefits of quality early childhood education for children. The first five years of a child's life are critical for their physical, social and cognitive development. I know that because I'm a paediatrician. We should aspire to a future of universal access to quality early childhood education for all Australian children. Australia has a strong national framework and quality standards for early childhood education. We know how important this care is, and we have invested in the development of best practice in the provision of this care. But access to services is patchy, and, despite the subsidies in place, it is still highly dependent on a family's hours of employment and its income. In the future, Australia should aim to give every child access to early childhood education, no matter what their parents' income or their employment status is.

One limitation of this bill is that the hours of child care that Australian families can be subsidised for is still tied to their activity levels, or the hours worked by the parent. The legislation amends the childcare subsidy activity test. Currently it is as follows, with exceptions for children in special circumstances—for example, those at risk of neglect. Children whose parents are working eight hours a fortnight have 24 hours of subsidised child care unless their parents earn more than $72,000 a year, in which case they're not eligible for any subsidised childcare hours. Children whose parents work eight to 16 hours can attend child care for 36 hours a week at a subsidised rate. If parents work between 16 and 48 hours, their child can receive 72 hours of early childhood education. It's all very complicated.

It's great to see that this legislation will provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with a minimum of 36 hours of subsidised early childcare intervention, regardless of the employment status of their parents. This is a highly worthwhile change to the activity test and to how subsidies are allocated. It will have significant long-term benefits for those children and their families. In this provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, the government acknowledges that the activity test for childcare subsidies is a pernicious measure, as it is underpinned by an outdated belief that children should only go to child care if their parents are at work. A child's access to the lifelong developmental benefits of early childhood education should not be denied because their parents are unemployed, underemployed or in insecure casual work with variable hours. If these children are rendered ineligible to attend child care at the subsidised rate because their parents aren't working enough hours, how are these parents—who aren't working enough—meant to afford child care at 10 times the subsidised cost?

See this speech in context