Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm so pleased that I get to make a contribution to this debate on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. The reform before us is really important, and I am disappointed by the delaying tactics of the Greens political party to try and put the vote on this issue. There is a difference of opinion by the political parties in this chamber, which is why this debate is important.

I was here, in this parliament, when the previous Liberal-National government introduced the activity test. As the mum of a three-year-old and a five-year-old, I've seen the impact that test has had on families. It has created a complex system in early childhood education with the subsidy and the way in which it interacts. It has disadvantaged children, denying them the opportunity to attend early childhood education for at least three days. It has created complex conversations and challenging situations for families—in particular, for women. And that's what I wish to highlight in my contribution today.

The bill before us today says that all families will be guaranteed three days, 72 hours, of childcare subsidy per fortnight. It will encourage every child to access early childhood education, and it is another step on the way to universal early childhood education. There are multiple different examples of what happens with the activity test and how it interacts. It is all about the parents' activity and not about the children. We know from the resource that access to early childhood education gives children the foundation blocks, from the earliest age that they can interact, to be successful, to have the foundational skills to do well in primary school. We know those who from low socioeconomic and disadvantaged communities and backgrounds benefit the most. We know that children from a non-English-speaking background benefit from having access to early childhood education, and we know that children of First Nations communities benefit from having access to early childhood education.

What we currently have are various situations where directors in centres are having to have tough conversations with families—particularly if it's their second or third child—about if they satisfy the activity test to keep their first child engaged in education. It has an impact on small business when women, who might be returning to work, take extended periods of leave from their employer so that they satisfy the activity test, because that's one of the ways in which you can stay—if you stay on the books somewhere. We also know that it locks people into hours that may not work for their family, meaning parents are having to make tough choices for their family unit at a time when they want less of our regulation and rules and more opportunity and choices for families.

Situations where it may be in the best interest of the family unit for mum or dad to stay at home a little bit longer with their children mean they may not satisfy these arbitrary rules around the activity test. If they don't satisfy them, the older child has to be withdrawn. They have an interruption to their early childhood education, making it harder for them to transition back in, if that's what the family chooses.

I do know of some situations where, when the second child comes along, the first child may come out of early childhood education for the period that mum or dad is at home, but that's not the case for everybody. Most families like to keep their eldest child engaged with their peers, with their teachers and on that path of learning. So the activity test put an arbitrary barrier in place. And I know because I am a kinder mum. I have a three-year-old and I have a five-year-old. Mums and dads try and be creative to satisfy the activity test so they don't have to pull their older child out of early childhood education. We shouldn't put families in this situation. That is why this reform is sensible, that is why this reform is measured, and that is why this reform is needed. It is about putting children at the centre of early childhood education and our childhood subsidy and making sure that every child has access to a guaranteed three days, or 72 hours, a fortnight of childcare subsidy. It gives them the building blocks.

This reform is part of a bigger package of reforms our government has moved in early childhood education, which includes paying educators their value and worth. We've put those reforms in. It means making sure that we are building centres where there are deserts; that's a term in early childhood education for when we don't have enough childcare places for children seeking access to child care. We are lowering fees through our changes on cheaper child care, and we're working with fee-free TAFE and making sure we have that pipeline of skilled workers coming in.

What the Liberals and Nationals are proposing is extraordinary. They want to scrap fee-free TAFE, which is the pathway to getting more people working in early childhood education. They're opposed to our proposal to scrap the activity test, which is about giving younger Australians that access to early childhood education that gives them foundation skills. They had to be dragged to the table on lifting wages for early childhood educators—and I bet they will scrap that fund the first opportunity they get; they did it the last time they got elected, when we as a Labor government put in place the quality fund.

The opposition are not committed to early childhood education. They are not committed to rolling out universal access to early childhood education. They still see the sector as largely about babysitting children while mum returns to work. It is not that. That old, archaic thinking should have been put to bed a long time ago. The research is in, and it's been in for a long time: early childhood education matters. It gives our children the foundation skills they need to do well at kinder and go on to primary school. It allows families to identify early-learning difficulties or to have early intervention to help their young person settle into school and education sooner and quicker. It is transformative in terms of behavioural issues and confidence-building, and it ensures all our young people, if they get access to early childhood education, enter primary school with largely the same skills and the same opportunities.

Being a mum of a little person who has just transitioned from early childhood education to primary school and watching all her peers go through it, it is extraordinary what our educators do. Daisy and her peers, the foundation kids this year at Prep Kids, are so ready; they are so set up. She has had access to good-quality early childhood education every year of her life since nine months of age. Charlie, my son, is going through that journey. Any parent who has seen their little person flourish in early childhood education and has had that success of a good transition knows how important early childhood education is. That is why I stand here today shocked that, despite all the research, despite all the personal experiences that women and families are raising in our electorates, we still have the Liberal and the National parties voting against stepping towards universal early childhood education. And we have the Greens political party trying to gag debate in a debate we need to have. This is a moment to put the youngest children of Australia first by opening up and guaranteeing access to early childhood education. I encourage people to support this bill.

See this speech in context