Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. As has no doubt already been highlighted, the opposition will be opposing this bill for some of the reasons I intend to set out. If we just go back to the background of this legislation, the bill's intended to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and replaces references to the childcare-subsidy activity test with a new three-day guarantee. The legislation, at this point, is set to commence in January 2026, and the three-day guarantee is intended to provide all families that have up to a combined income of $533,000 with access to 72 hours a fortnight of subsidised childcare. That all sounds absolutely fabulous as a motherhood statement—no pun intended—but this legislation does not guarantee or prioritise access for working families over non-working families, and it's absolutely crucial, when parents return to work, that they are able to access and have choice about the type of childcare and early learning that is most appropriate for their family.

The government estimates the cost of the measure is $426.7 million over five years, despite the policy not rolling out until January 2026. That's $426.7 million over five years from 2024-25. The Productivity Commission's report on this, though, estimated the cost of the full removal of the activity test, which this legislation would do, as being over $2 billion per year. As usual, the Albanese Labor government love to spend money, splash money around and make headlines, but, as always, the proof is in the pudding and whether or not this will actually deliver any additional assistance for working families is really completely questionable.

To highlight the finances of this, the explanatory memorandum to the legislation states that the activity test changes will cost, as I said, $426.7 million, but the MYEFO outlook for 2024-25 stated the measure would cost $291.2 million over three years. The Productivity Commission did some preliminary modelling of a similar change to the activity test for its 2023 draft report, and, in that report, the commission found that relaxing the activity test so that all families could access at least three days or 30 hours of subsidised universal early childhood education and care a week would increase cost to the government by $1.1 billion per year. So it's really unclear. We actually don't know how much this policy is in fact going to cost. The amount splashed around by Labor is completely at odds with the Productivity Commission's detailed work on this proposal.

Personally, I know that I relied very much on the kindergarten model when my boys went to preschool. They went to a community preschool, and the community preschool was run by a parent board. I was very grateful that I had the ability to make a choice. I live in a metropolitan area and we do have shortages, but, at the time in 2009, when my children turned three and could start preschool, they went to Gymea Community Preschool. It was a great experience, and it was right for my family. That's what childcare and early childhood education should be about. It should be about ensuring that families can make the right decision for them because each family has different needs, different priorities and different circumstances.

The reason that the coalition opposes this legislation predominantly is it does remove the priority access for working families. In that way, we say it disincentivises aspiration and increases access without addressing supply issues. I know that's a very big issue out in the regions particularly, and I know many of my colleagues on this side who represent those electorates will be speaking about that. The legislation also does nothing to increase access or flexibility for families, and it doesn't attempt to address the current cost-of-living pressures. That is a summary of why we on this side will be opposing this legislation. We are relieved to see that the bill has at least been referred to a Senate inquiry, with a reporting date of 21 March this year.

On the background to this, the Prime Minister first announced this policy on 11 December last year. At the time it was described as the next steps in the Albanese Labor government's plan for a universal early learning system. In some of the commentary that went with the introduction of the legislation, Labor estimated that over 100,000 families will have access to more subsidised care and more than 66,000 families will be better off overall. But 66,000 families represent only about six per cent of all families that are currently engaged and utilising the childcare subsidy system. This is a big cash splash with very little return for the majority of parents and families who are using this system.

One of the other important reasons that we oppose this legislation is that we say this guarantee is fundamentally unfair and divisive. A three-day guarantee will only increase access for a very small number of families—as I said, about six per cent—but will have a wide-ranging impact on all families. Families who need access to early childhood education so they can work—and many, many Australian parents are in that position, particularly with the cost-of-living crisis we are subject to because of this government—will be competing against families who now have extra subsidised access but may not be working, studying or volunteering at all. That is the unintended impact and implication of this legislation. Families already in the system are unlikely to be impacted, but working families about to enter the system, or trying to enrol a new child, will be greatly impacted. This appears to be, once again, Labor simply at war with aspiration, with working families and with working parents.

The other, and the biggest, problem with this bill is that it simply fails to address the supply-side constraints. We've heard Labor championing, particularly, cheaper child care. But what is the point of cheaper child care if you cannot access a spot for your child when you need to return to work or study or other obligations? Modelling from the Productivity Commissioner shows most of the children affected by the activity test changes live in major cities. Families in what we call thin markets and childcare deserts who have little or no access at all to child care will be the most disadvantaged. They're already disadvantaged, and this is going to make them more disadvantaged. There is no point bringing in legislation that states, 'Yes, you've now got three days guaranteed care' if there is no actual child care available where you live.

I think this legislation shows the divisive nature of this government; we've seen it over the almost three years that they've been in power. This is pitting working families against non-working families, and metropolitan families against regional families. This is inherently unfair and not the Australian way. It doesn't reflect Australian values. The Prime Minister should be here bringing the nation together and governing for all Australians instead of continuing this divisiveness that started back in May 2022, when he was elected.

This legislation also does not provide sufficient choice for families. It does nothing for parents who need flexibility, families who do shift work, for example, or who work non-standard hours. There is no provision whatsoever for those. Those families will see no benefit from this change. But we on this side of the House well and truly believe that families need a choice as to the sort of care and the type of care that they can access to suit the individual needs of their families. This legislation, we say, will reward families who already access child care at the expense of families who are unable to access it or who choose not to access it.

To conclude, we on this side of the House are absolutely committed to assisting families to access child care and early education. However, we say that this legislation, for all of the reasons that I have just set out, will not do the job that it is intended to do.

See this speech in context