Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The COVID-19 crisis has had a disproportionate impact on women. First of all, women in the workforce are more likely to be engaged in insecure work, the kinds of jobs that were the first to be lost as a result of the restrictions that were put in place. On average, more women than men are losing their jobs or having hours of work reduced. Women also take on a disproportionate share of caring and household duties and are spending one extra hour per day on unpaid housework and four hours on caring for children. Women are also far more likely than men to be the victims of domestic and family violence, which has markedly increased as a result of the lockdown measures.

As I said, women are more likely to be engaged in insecure work, yet 1.1 million casual workers are not covered by the government's JobKeeper scheme because they have been with their current employer for less than 12 months. Women retire with average superannuation balances half those of male retirees—a situation which will no doubt be made worse through the early access to superannuation scheme. Younger workers who access $20,000 of superannuation early could be costing themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time they retire.

As if the situation for women wasn't bad enough, the Morrison government has just kicked 120,000 early childhood educators off JobKeeper earlier than anybody else. What makes this decision even more outrageous is that Mr Morrison promised on Friday that JobKeeper would remain in place for eligible workers until September. The announcement that workers in early childhood education and care would no longer have access to JobKeeper from 13 July came only three days after that. It took just three days for Mr Morrison to break his promise to early childhood educators. The consequences of this decision are far reaching, especially for women. It will impact on workers, on parents, on the economy, and, worst of all, on children. This decision threatens the viability of a number of early childhood education services and puts at risk the jobs of educators. When women are already disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, it beggars belief that the first industry to be removed from the JobKeeper scheme is one in which 96 per cent of the workers are women, or maybe that's why it's happened.

Free child care was a big help to parents who were experiencing the loss of household income through the economic impacts of COVID-19, especially given Australia has some of the most expensive, out-of-pocket childcare expenses in the world. Many Australian families were already struggling with high childcare fees before the pandemic. Now, during a recession in which 2.6 million Australians are unemployed or underemployed, paying for child care is beyond the means of many more. Australian families, early childhood educators and the Australian economy cannot afford a snapback to the old, complex, confusing and expensive childcare system. Snapping back to the old system three months early is going to make it more difficult for families relying on child care to balance the budget and to get back to work again as the economy recovers. This is a situation that will not just put financial pressures on family but will put a dampener on workforce participation and slow the economic recovery. And, once again, women, parents and carers will be impacted more than men.

If children are removed from child care or their hours are cut back, this is also going to have consequences for their educational development. As a former early childhood educator, I understand this. I get this. I know how important this is. This is why we refer to early childhood education as 'education' and not just 'care'. You need to think of early childhood education as a form of learning, like school but possibly even more vital for childhood development. Its importance has been verified by numerous studies. This is why early childhood education needs to be affordable and accessible.

We know from studies the enormous contribution that early childhood education can have to the physical, psychological, social and emotional development of children. That's why developed nations are investing heavily in early learning and many of them are streets ahead of Australia. And I have to say that I was completely gobsmacked during yesterday's debate on the motion to take note of answers to questions without notice. The comments of Senator Rennick, who suggested in that debate that parents should just stay at home and raise their children, showed exactly what that side of the chamber think about child care and early childhood education. Not only was Senator Rennick actively discouraging parents from engaging in the workforce but he was dismissing the enormous value of quality early learning, and he was also presuming that everyone can afford to stay home and mind their child or children.

When I heard Senator Rennick's contribution, as I said, in the taking note debate, I actually thought that maybe we'd been transported back to the 1950s. It was particularly galling to hear early childhood education referred to as:

… the hand of government reaching in and taking away our children's youth.

Senator Rennick gave a very bizarre speech yesterday in the taking note. I've been here for 12 years or so and I really think it was one of the most bizarre ones I've heard. I'm not sure if Senator Rennick, who referred to the Wizard of Oz, realises that the Wizard of Oz is a fiction which actually came to fruition in the late 1930s, but he sounded like he wanted to go back that far. He was insulting and he made outrageous slurs against the thousands of early childhood educators who uphold the highest professional standards and deliver high-quality early learning to children in their care. What message are Senator Rennick's comments sending to parents—particularly women—who want or need to participate in the workforce? How dare he suggest that these parents are complicit in taking away the youth of their children?

These backward-thinking comments must be rebuked by the government in the strongest terms but, of course, Liberal members and senators have been completely silent on them. I'd be very interested to hear what the Minister for Women, Senator Payne, has to say about these comments and whether she agrees with them; or the Minister for Education, Mr Tehan, in the other place; or his portfolio representative in this place, Senator Birmingham. Those opposite must disassociate themselves from Senator Rennick's comments or else, by their silence, they implicitly endorse his slur against early childhood educators.

It's okay for Senator Rennick to take four years off: what a wonderful man he was—he took four years off, I think he said, to look after his own children. I don't find that at all strange, if you can afford it. I don't know why he thought that he shouldn't, in actual fact, because we do understand that in these days of equality fathers should have equal access to caring for their children. He wasn't babysitting them; he was their father, and one would expect that a father who could afford to do it maybe would. But not everybody can afford it. Not everybody goes to work because they just like to go to work. Many, many people—especially women and especially those women in low-paid work, often casual work—go to work because they have to, to pay the bills. It's not because they can afford not to—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

So, as I said, those opposite must disassociate themselves from Senator Rennick's comments or else, by their silence, they implicitly endorse his slur against early childhood educators. It's no wonder that the ranks of women on that side are so thin by comparison to the boys club that is running the Liberal Party. The boys club and its 1950s attitudes was clearly voiced by Senator Rennick yesterday. This goes a long way towards—

Senator Rennick interjecting—